FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):

Request for CEO endorsement/Approval

Project Type:

the GEF Trust Fund

Submission Date: 5 October 2007

Re-submission Date: 10 October 2007

Expected Calendar
Milestones	Dates
Work Program (for FSP)	June 2007
GEF Agency Approval	Nov 2007
Implementation Start	Jan 2008
Mid-term Review (if planned)	July 2009
Implementation Completion	Dec 2010

part i: project Information

GEFSEC Project ID: 2700

gef agency Project ID: 3469

Country(ies): Regional – East Asia Participating Countries: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam, with Brunei Darussalam, Japan, RO Korea and Singapore participating on a cost-sharing basis

Project Title: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA)

GEF Agency(ies): , ,

Other Executing partner(s): UNOPS

GEF Focal Area(s): , , ,

GEF-4 Strategic program(S): SP1: Restoring and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and Associated Biological Diversity and SP2: Reducing Nutrient Over-Enrichment and Oxygen Depletion from Land-Based Pollution of Coastal Waters in LMEs Consistent with the GPA

Name of parent program/umbrella project: N/A

A. Project framework (Expand table as necessary)

Project Objective: to facilitate the implementation of the SDS-SEA through mobilization of the necessary partnership arrangements, operating mechanisms, intellectual capital, support services and resources for the achievement of the shared vision of sustainable use of coastal and marine resources of the region and the development targets of the WSSD Plan of Implementation and the UN MDGs.
Project Components	Indicate whether Investment, TA, or STA**	Expected Outcomes	Expected Outputs	GEF Financing*		Co-financing*		Total ($)
Project Components	Indicate whether Investment, TA, or STA**	Expected Outcomes	Expected Outputs	($)	%	($)	%	Total ($)
1. A functional regional mechanism for SDS-SEA Implementation	TA	An inter-governmental multi-sectoral EAS Partnership Council, coordinating, evaluating and refining the implementation of the SDS-SEA, and advancing the regional partnership arrangement to a higher level	A country-owned regional mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation A Plan of Action for transforming PEMSEA into a long term, self-sustained regional implementing mechanism for the SDS-SEA	1.53M	14	1.62M	5	3.15M
2. National policies and reforms for sustainable coastal and ocean governance	TA	National policies and programs on sustainable coastal and ocean development mainstreamed into social and economic development programs of participating countries	An agreed framework, methodology and indicators for social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors developed and demonstrated in two countries of the region National policy, legislative and institutional reforms, and interagency and multi-sectoral coordinating mechanisms aimed at improved integrated management of marine and coastal areas	0.58	5	2.75	8	3.33
3. Scaling up ICM programs	TA	Integrated coastal management (ICM) scaled up as an on-the-ground framework for achieving sustainable development of coastal lands and waters in at least 5% of the total coastline of the region by 2010	Institutional arrangements for national ICM programs in place Capacity building strengthened for local government ICM programs An ICM Code adopted by national and local governments for voluntary use as a standard for certification/recognition of ICM sites A PSHEM Code adopted and implemented by national governments and the private sector for voluntary use by port authorities and those companies operating in a port as a standard for certification/recognition of a Port Safety, Health and Environmental Management System (PSHEMS)	2.66	24	11.11	33	13.77
4. Twinning arrangements for river basin and coastal area management	TA	South-south and north-south twinning arrangements established for integrated management of watersheds, estuaries and adjacent coastal seas, promoting knowledge and experience sharing and collaboration for the implementation of management programs in environmental hotspots of the region	Regional twinning arrangements developed and implemented for site-specific river basin and coastal area management programs	1.31	12	6.82	20	8.13
5. Intellectual capital and human resources	TA	Use of the region’s intellectual capital and human resources strengthened, and addressing policy, economic, scientific, technical and social challenges and constraints to integrated management and sustainable use of the marine and coastal environment and resources of the Seas of East Asia	An enhanced technical support network for countries, comprised of a Regional Task Force (RTF) and country-based National Task Forces (NTF) Areas of Excellence (AOEs) Program and a regional network of universities/scientific institutions supporting SDS-SEA implementation at the national and local levels Professional upgrade program, graduate scholarships and specialized training courses An internet-based information portal in place, building awareness and transferring knowledge and lessons learned Community based projects, including those addressing supplementary livelihood opportunities, developed and implemented at ICM sites throughout the region in partnership with GEF/UNDP Small Grants Programme and other community-based donor programs A self-sustaining regional network of local governments in place, operating and committed to achieving tangible improvements in the sustainable use and development of marine and coastal areas through ICM practices	2.07	19	7.64	23	9.71
6. Investment and Financing	TA	Public and private sector cooperation achieving environmental sustainability through the mobilization of investments in pollution reduction facilities and services	Innovative national investment and financing policies and programs for public and private sector investment in pollution reduction facilities	0.38	3	0.32	1	0.70
7. Strategic partnership arrangements	TA	A Strategic Partnership for the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia, functioning as a mechanism for GEF, the World Bank, the UNDP, and other international and regional partners to incorporate and coordinate their strategic action plans, programs and projects under the framework of the SDS-SEA, thus promoting greater sustainability and political commitment to the effort	A functional Strategic Partnership arrangement facilitating enhanced communication, knowledge sharing, scaling up and replication of innovative technologies and practices in pollution reduction across the LMEs of East Asia	0.72	66	0.10	0	0.82
8. Corporate Social Responsibility	TA	Multinational and national corporations integrating social responsibility into their organizational strategies, programs and practices, and facilitating the replication and scaling up of capacities in sustainable development of marine and coastal resources among local governments and communities of the region	Partnership arrangements established and implemented between multinational and national corporations, industry, local governments and communities for sustainable development of marine and coastal resources Corporate responsibility practices evaluated and recognized as a special relevance to achieving social, environmental and economic benefits in coastal communities	0.71	7			0.71
4. Project management				0.93	9	3.00	9	3.93
Total Project Costs				10.88		33.37		44.25

* List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component.

** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.

B. Financing Plan Summary For The Project ($)

	Project Preparation*	*Project*	*Agency Fee*	*Total at CEO Endorsement*	*For the record:* *Total at PIF*
GEF	700,000	10,876,336	1,157, 663	12,733,999	10,800,000
Co-financing	397,400	33,374,400		33,771,800	20,000,000
Total	1,097,400	44,250,736	1,157,663	46,505,799	30,800,000

* Please include the previously approved PDFs and PPG, if any. Indicate the amount already approved as footnote here and if the GEF
funding is from GEF-3. Provide the status of implementation and use of fund for the project preparation grant in Annex D.

C. Sources of confirmed Co-financing, including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG.

(expand the table line items as necessary)

*Name of co-financier (source)*	*Classification*	*Type*	*Amount ($)*	%*
Cambodia			720,000	2
China			375,000	1
China		In-kind	8,631,200	26
Indonesia		In-kind	2,250,000	7
Japan			125,000	0.5
Philippines		In-kind	2,088,200	6
RO Korea			400,000	1.5
RO Korea	Nat’l Gov’t	In-kind	10,729,000	32
Thailand	Nat’l Gov’t	In-kind	2,276,000	7
MERIT, City University of Hong Kong	NGO	In-kind	5,780,000	17
Total Co-financing			33,374,400	100%

* Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.

D. GEF Resources Requested by Focal Area(s), Agency(ies) or Country(ies)

*GEF Agency*	*Focal Area*	*Country Name/* *Global*	*(in $)*
*GEF Agency*	*Focal Area*	*Country Name/* *Global*	*Project Preparation*	*Project*	*Agency* *Fee*	*Total*
		Regional: Asia	700,000	10,876,336	1,157,663	12,733,999
Total GEF Resources			700,000	10,876,336	1,157,663	12,733,999

* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project.

E. Project management Budget/cost

Cost Items	Total Estimated person weeks	GEF *($)*	Other sources ($)	Project total ($)
Locally recruited personnel	1,468	128,400	2,096,000	2,224,400
Local consultants*
International consultants*	156	480,000		480,000
Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications**		159,800	554,000	713,800
Travel***		59,200	350,000	409,200
Professional Services (Project audit/Financial audit)		102,858		102,858
Total	624	930,258	3,000,000	3,930,258

* Detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.

** Regional office operations, including communications, office supplies, maintenance of equipment and UN security, funded

by GEF. Office rental and electrical, water supply, sewage, and cleaning and maintenance costs are being co-financed by the

Government of the Philippines, as host country of the PRF Office.

*** Duty travel of the Executive Director and support personnel to annual EAS Partnership Council meetings, Executive

Committee meetings, related regional events/meetings, and the GEF IW biennial conference in 2009 paid by GEF. Travel by

national personnel assigned to the project in the 11 participating countries to the same regional meetings and events, as well

as in-country travel for managing national projects, paid by co-financing.

f. Consultants working for technical assistance components:

Component	Estimated person weeks	GEF($)	Other sources ($)	Project total ($)
Local consultants*	1,716	999,484	185,723	1,185,207
International consultants*	968	1,370,739	559,187	1,929,926
Total	2,684	2,370,223	744,910	3,115,133

* Detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.

G. describe the budgeted m&e plan:

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the proposed project will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures, and in consonance with the management structure and processes adopted under the proposed project. The Project Logical Framework, which covers performance indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification, will underpin the M&E system that will be established for the proposed project. The standard M&E reports and procedures required for all UNDP/GEF projects would apply to the M&E for the proposed project, including the following: i) Inception Workshop and Report; ii) Tripartite Review; iii) Quarterly Operational Report; iv) Harmonized Annual Project Report and Project Implementation Review, including Project Terminal Report; v) Periodic Thematic Reports; vi) Independent External Evaluation ; vii) Budget Revisions ; viii) Substantive Project Revisions; and ix) Audit. The costed M&E plan is summarized below:

Table 1: Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Corresponding Budget

Type of M&E Activity	Responsible Parties	Budget US$ Excluding Project Team Staff Time	Timeframe
Inception Report	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNOPS	Nil	Immediately following the first Project Steering Committee/EAS Partnership Council
Development of fuller and more detailed set of indicators	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø Regional Task Force on State of Coasts reporting (A.1.5) Ø National Task Forces on ICM reporting (C.1.3) Ø Strategic Partnership project indicators (G.1.3)	125,000	Within 12 months of project start-up
Measurement of project progress and performance	Ø Local, national, sub-regional and regional reporting system for the State of Coasts report Ø PRF Technical Services	395,000	State of Coast report will be published triennially Progress indicators/ performance indicators will be monitored annually and reported in APR/PIR, including catalytic impact.
TPR and TPR Report	Ø EAS Partnership Council - Intergovernmental Session Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNOPS Ø UNDP GEF	Nil	Annually
Quarterly Operational Reports	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNDP PPRR Ø UNDP GEF	Nil	Quarterly
APR/PIR	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNDP PPRR Ø UNOPS Ø UNDP GEF	Nil	Annually
Project Steering Committee meetings	Ø EAS Partnership Council – Technical Session Ø PRF Technical Services Ø World Bank (Strategic Partnership) Ø UNDP PPRR	Nil	Annually
Mid-term External Evaluation/Report	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNDP PPRR Ø UNOPS Ø UNDP GEF Ø World Bank (Strategic Partnership) Ø External consultants	30,000	At the mid-point of the project
Final Terminal Evaluation/Report	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNDP PPRR Ø UNOPS Ø UNDP GEF Ø World Bank (Strategic Partnership) Ø External Consultants	42,858	At the end of project implementation
Budget Revisions	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNDP GEF	Nil	Annually, but before June 10
Substantive Budget Revisions	Ø PRF Technical Services Ø UNDP GEF Executive Coordinator	Nil	As needed
Financial Audit	Ø PRF Secretariat Services Ø UNDP PPRR Ø UNOPS	30,000	As required by the IA/EA
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team staff and UNDP staff and travel expenses		622,858

part ii: project justification

A. describe the project rationale and the expected measurable global environmental benefits:

The Seas of East Asia are home to 30% of world coral reefs and mangroves, about 40% of the world fish catch, and 84% of the world aquaculture production, and are considered a world center for tropical marine biodiversity. Some 1.9 billion people live in the region and this is expected to increase to 3 billion by 2015. Economic activities are largely clustered around the region’s coastal cities that play host to an estimated 77% of the 1.9 billion people. Traditional resource-based activities, such as coastal fisheries, aquaculture, forestry and agriculture, are found side by side with industry, shipping and tourism. Half of the world’s merchant fleet sails through the Malacca and the Lombok Straits, while 14 of the 20 largest maritime ports in the world are located in the shipping corridor that stretches from Singapore to Japan.

Capture fisheries from the South China Sea contribute 10% of the world's landed catch, at around 5 million tonnes per year. From the standpoint of aquaculture, five of the eight top shrimp producers in the world are countries bordering the South China Sea, namely: Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Thailand and the Philippines. Coral reefs and mangroves, together with seagrass beds, soft bottom communities and tidal wetlands provide food, employment and foreign exchange earnings to the countries of the region. For example, in Indonesia and the Philippines, which contain 75% of the region’s coral reefs, the annual economic returns from this resource are estimated at US$1.6 billion and US$1.1 billion per year, respectively. For the whole Southeast Asian region, the potential economic value of well-managed coral reefs is estimated to be 42.5% of the global total of US$29.8 billion.

Growing populations and their migration to coastal areas, dynamic economic growth, and rising global demands for fishery and aquaculture products, largely met by export products from the East Asian Seas, and rapidly increasing shipping traffic, have combined to exert tremendous pressure on East Asia’s marine environment and coastal resources. Decades of advocacy, political commitments and conservation efforts at the national and regional levels have not prevented the Seas of East Asia from degrading at an ever-increasing pace. Arresting and reversing the decline is an urgent task that requires a new approach, a new paradigm. That paradigm is a strategic partnership of governments, international organizations and donors, and stakeholders from all sectors of society, from within and outside of the East Asian Region, working together to achieve a shared vision of a sustainable resource system for the Seas of East Asia.

The SDS-SEA addresses priority concerns in several sectors including land-based and sea-based pollution, overfishing, health and safety, loss of biodiversity, habitat preservation, sustainable water use and water resource management, natural and man-made hazards, and other challenges of sustainable coastal management. The SDS-SEA identifies the variety of values of the Seas of East Asia to the people of the region, such as ecological, economic, aesthetic, recreational, historical, political, educational and cultural. It further identifies the threats to the maintenance of these values, and develops a shared vision of actions that would serve to sustain, preserve and protect these values for future generations. Land-based pollution (particularly from hotspots defined in the Strategy) is identified as a primary threat to the Seas of East Asia. Reduction of land-based pollution through policy strengthening, capacity building, scaling up investments in pollution control, and the strengthening of environmental management in watersheds and coastal areas, are all confirmed as priority activities that would contribute to the Strategy’s main objective of achieving sustainability in the Seas of East Asia.

The project’s outputs and outcomes correlate well with the indicators of on-the-ground reforms and stress reduction measures that are the focus of the GEF 4 IW program, and will generate the following global environmental benefits:

Relevant IW Indicators	Project’s Contribution to the IW Indicator
Multi-country water body legal framework developed and/or strengthened.	PEMSEA’s EAS Partnership Council transformation into a long-term, self-sustaining regional mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation with its own legal personality; 6-year Framework of Partnership Programmes for SDS-SEA implementation adopted and initiated by participating countries and other partners; Plan of Action for the transformation of PEMSEA into a sustainable regional mechanism with its own legal identity adopted and initiated.
National policies, legal and institutional reforms adopted to reduce land-based sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and oxygen-demanding pollutants, consistent with agreed transboundary action programs.	ICM policies and legislation catalyzed in at least 5 countries during the project (Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam) covering scaling up of ICM programs, 6-year framework programs with time-bound targets for pollution reduction, and national interagency, multisectoral coordinating mechanisms.
Financial and institutional sustainability of joint transboundary waters institutions.	PEMSEA Resource Facility Secretariat Services, PEMSEA Network of Local Governments Secretariat, and Twinning Secretariat for Ecosystem-based management fully functional and sustained by participating governments and their partners.
Broad stakeholder involvement in transboundary water body priority setting and evaluation of progress established.	Regular triennial EAS Congress and Ministers Forum conducted, serving as the vehicle for knowledge sharing and evaluation of local, national and regional progress towards the agreed objectives and targets of the SDS-SEA, and employing the regional State of Coasts reporting system as the primary source of information.
Financial mechanisms in place to support SAP implementation.	Project Preparation Revolving Fund(s) operating in at least one country and providing fully developed project proposals to financing programs and investment groups in the public and private sectors, for financing of pollution reduction projects in the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors.
Reductions in conflicting uses and degradation/ destruction of marine and coastal resources.	ICM programs functioning in coastal provinces, cities and municipalities in Cambodia, China, Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, RO Korea, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Vietnam, addressing use conflicts and priority environmental issues, including pollution reduction, waste management, conservation/restoration of habitats and fisheries, sustainable use of water resources, alternative livelihoods, coastal development, and disaster management.
Adoption and sustainable implementation of policy, legal and institutional reforms for pollution reduction and coastal protection.	Policy and institutional reforms adopted among local governments implementing ICM programs, catalyzing investment opportunities for the corporate sector/business community and IFIs in Philippines and Vietnam.
Reduced discharges of nutrients and oxygen-demanding pollutants from the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors.	Replication strategies/investment plans prepared for priority pollution hotspot locations in China (Bohai Sea) and the Philippines (Manila Bay); innovative technologies, practices and financing approaches demonstrated under the Partnership Investment Fund sub-projects promoted/replicated in pollution hotspots; reductions in nutrient loadings ranging from 10-50% in targeted coastal areas.
Increased proportion of the local population with access to safe and sustainable water supply, sewerage and sanitation facilities.	ICM scaling up programs result in improvements in the quality of life in local communities, as measured by reductions in risk to human health from unsafe drinking water sources and untreated sewage discharges, and sustaining/increasing community livelihoods, especially coastal fisheries and aquaculture.
Improved water quality of coastal areas at ICM sites, increased areas of protected and/or restored habitat, stabilized or increased fish biomass; other indicators of ecosystem health.	Implementation of strategic action plans within ICM framework in targeted coastal areas result in: 5%-10% of habitats identified as protected areas and/or undergoing restoration; improvements in fishery management and stabilization of some coastal fish stocks and alternate increase in biomass.

B. Describe the consistency of the project with national priorities/plans:

The participating countries, including Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam, are eligible for GEF assistance under para 9(b) of the GEF Instrument. Brunei Darussalam, Japan, RO Korea and Singapore will be participating in the project on a cost-sharing basis, thereby providing an opportunity for cross-country transfer of knowledge and experience between developed countries and lesser developed countries of the region.

On 12 December 2003, twelve (12) countries of the East Asian Seas region adopted the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA), with Ministers and Senior Officials signing the Putrajaya Declaration - the first regional declaration for the sustainable development of the coasts and oceans of East Asia, directly responding to the global targets under the WSSD Plan of Implementation, the UN Millennium Declaration, and Agenda 21 - signifying agreement and determination to implement the SDS-SEA in accordance with their respective national priorities and capacities[1]. Two additional countries subsequently attended and formally professed commitment to the implementation of the SDS-SEA during the Eleventh (11^th) PEMSEA PSC Meeting, held 1 to 4 August 2005[2]. The project application was endorsed by the participating countries at the 10^th PEMSEA PSC Meeting, held 25 to 29 October 2004 (12 countries), and at the 11^th PEMSEA PSC meeting (2 additional countries).

The sense of ownership of the project has been further demonstrated via a series of recent initiatives and decisions by participating countries and stakeholders, including:

a) formulation and adoption of the Haikou Partnership Agreement and Partnership Operating Arrangements for the implementation of the SDS-SEA, signed by Ministers and Senior Government Officials from 11 participating governments[3] during the Ministerial Forum of the EAS Congress 2006;

b) twelve (12) stakeholder organizations^{^[4]} signed the Partnership Operating Arrangements, thus becoming the first group of non-governmental organizations to be formally recognized as PEMSEA Partners for the implementation of the SDS-SEA.

c) financial commitments for the establishment and operation of the PRF Secretariat Services, to provide secretariat support to the EAS Partnership Council, including cash contributions by China, Japan and RO Korea, through Cost Sharing Agreements (CSA) with the UNDP;

d) national consultation workshops and forums undertaken from January 2006 to August 2006 in Cambodia, China, DPR Korea[5], Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Philippines, RO Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, with a total of over 900 participants, including national and local government officials and representatives of research and education institutions, NGOs, corporate and private sector and communities. The President of the Republic of Philippines addressed her country’s National Forum on Sustainable Development of Coastal and Marine Resources, and signed an Executive Order for the adoption and implementation of integrated coastal management (ICM) as a national strategy. These events have been able to take stock of experience and lessons learned in the past project implementation and identify national needs and priorities that have been reflected in the formulation of this Project Document; and

e) decisions by the Governments of Lao PDR and Timor Leste to partner with the participating countries of PEMSEA to implement the SDS-SEA.

C. Describe the consistency of the project with gef strategies and strategic programs:

The GEF 4 Strategy for International Waters emphasizes the transition from a testing and demonstration mode to scaling up of full operations in support of agreed incremental costs of reforms, investments and management programs needed to reduce stress on transboundary freshwater and marine systems. The strategy and objectives of the project are consistent with this shift in course of action. The project aims to put in place the necessary policy reforms, institutional arrangements, partnerships and capacities to scale-up ICM programs across the region, with a target of more than 20% of the coastline by 2015. An important factor of the ICM scaling up design is to strengthen national support and assistance to local governments and communities for the effective application of ICM programs, thereby facilitating on-the ground progress toward strategic national, regional and global objectives, including: i) reducing pollution and the resulting destruction and degradation of land areas, rivers and coastal waters; ii) protecting and conserving biodiversity; iii) promoting a sustainable supply and use of waters; iv) strengthening food security, especially in developing sustainable fisheries and aquaculture practices; v) managing natural and man-made disasters; and vi) creating alternative livelihoods for the coastal poor.

These proposed actions are consistent with an ecosystem-based approach in addressing multiple stresses in support of IW Strategic Programme I of the IW Operational Program, (i.e., depletion of coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity), through:

a) Development of sustainable alternative livelihoods (e.g., aquaculture), habitat restoration and awareness building/education in coastal communities in partnership with the UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme;

b) Engaging the corporate sector/business community as partners of national and local governments in the development and implementation of effective and sustainable ICM programs, as well as investors in environmental projects, such as: water supply/conservation; sustainable fisheries/aquaculture; management of natural and manmade disasters; and information management and dissemination.

The project also tackles Strategic Program II, (i.e., reducing nutrient over-enrichment from land-based pollution of coastal waters) through:

a) Twinning arrangements among priority sites in the region that are just beginning to develop and implement integrated river basin and coastal sea management programs (i.e., Bohai Sea; Manila Bay; Jakarta Bay) and those with mature programs (e.g., Chesepeake Bay; Seto Inland Sea; Masan-Chinhae Bay), in order to facilitate and, possibly, accelerate the preparation and implementation of nutrient reduction interventions;

b) Formulation and adoption of investment and financing plans for pollution reduction facilities and services in the selected priority watersheds, aimed at achieving targeted reductions in nutrients and other land-based pollutants; and

c) Development and adoption of reforms in policy, procurement practices, economic instruments and financial mechanisms in support of increased public and private sector investment in pollution reduction facilities and services.

In addition to the above project activities, the Strategic Partnership with the World Bank will demonstrate, evaluate and promote the replication of innovative policy, technological, and financing solutions to overcome existing constraints to investment in pollution reduction facilities in the region. The synergy between the two projects is well-appreciated by the participating countries : the UNDP project will facilitate the necessary policy reforms, institutional arrangements, awareness, capacities and opportunities among governments and stakeholders to confront land-based pollution as a major impediment to sustainable development of river basins and coastal areas; the WB project will demonstrate and promote the replication of innovative tools, technologies and financial mechanisms that will allow governments and stakeholders to implement pollution reduction projects and programs effectively and affordably, including the establishment of a Project Preparation Revolving Fund to assist project proponents in developing and implementing bankable pollution reduction projects.

Outline the Coordination with other related initiatives:

All countries have actively participated in the development of the Project Design, through a series of national and regional consultations. Framework programs have been developed and confirmed, identifying priority activities/areas of concern to be addressed in support of SDS-SEA objectives within and among participating countries over the next three years. In addition, institutional linkages have been manifested through consultation with various international agencies and institutions, as follows:

i. The project complements the work of UNDP in the region, providing UNDP country offices with a mechanism and road map to sustainable development and the achievement of the WSSD and MDG targets through implementation of the SDS-SEA;

ii. An agreement has been signed with the UNDP Small Grants Programme in support of NGOs/CBOs/POs participation in the formulation and implementation of coastal strategies at the local government level;

iii. The World Bank, UNDP and PEMSEA are in the process of forging a pilot Strategic Partnership Arrangement for implementation of the SDS-SEA. The arrangement includes development and implementation of a WB/GEF Partnership Investment Fund for Pollution Reduction in the LMEs of East Asia. World Bank is currently implementing integrated river basin management projects in the Hai, Pearl and Mekong Rivers, which are an integral part of the SDS-SEA strategy;

iv. IMO has implemented a number of capacity building initiatives in the East Asian Seas region through the Regional Programme Office (RPO) of PEMSEA, and this is expected to be continued under the proposed project, particularly with regard to strengthening awareness and capacities in maritime safety, marine pollution prevention from ships, ship and port security, invasive alien species in ballast water, anti-fouling systems, and the designation and management of particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs). A letter of agreement is pending;

v. An MOA/LOI has been signed with UNEP-GPA, outlining areas of cooperation and collaboration regarding implementation of GPA within the framework of the SDS-SEA in the East Asian region;

vi. UNEP/COBSEA has been part of the consultation process in the development of the SDS-SEA. PEMSEA and COBSEA have also prepared a joint policy brief entitled Partnership Opportunities for Enhancing GPA Implementation in the East Asian Region (2007-2011), which was presented to the GPA IGR2 meeting in October 2006. The policy brief outlines ways and means of promoting enhanced collaboration and sharing experiences and knowledge among countries and regional programs and projects. COBSEA sits as an Observer at the EAS Partnership Council;

vii. Consultations have been undertaken with the two GEF regional projects (i.e., GEF/UNEP South China Sea LME project; and GEF/UNDP Yellow Sea LME project) to identify where and how the SDS-SEA can serve as a platform for stronger cooperation. The GEF/UNDP Yellow Sea project signed the Partnership Operating Arrangements of PEMSEA in December 2006, thereby becoming a member of the EAS Partnership Council. The GEF/UNEP South China Sea project collaborated with PEMSEA in the organization and implementation of the EAS Congress 2006 and sat as an Observer during the Ministerial Forum and Inaugural Meeting of the EAS Partnership Council in December 2006. The South China Sea Project has been invited to join the EAS Partnership Council;

viii. Conservation International signed a Letter of Cooperation with PEMSEA along with the Partnership Operating Arrangements in December 2006, indicating areas of collaboration in East Asia with regard to resource and biodiversity conservation and protection in the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas. The arrangement covers collaboration related to development of national coastal and marine policy, good practices in climate change adaptation strategies within the ICM framework, contribution to the regional State of Coasts report, and training on specialized skills for application of ICM/ecosystem-based management and integrated implementation of international environmental instruments and regional plans of action. A similar agreement with IUCN is pending;

ix. A Letter of Cooperation was with the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Victorian Coastal Council (VCC) of Victoria, Australia, in December 2006 on the following activities: awareness-building; skills enhancement and professional development; linkage-, partnership, and local alliance—building; and strengthening the use of intellectual capital through networking for marine education, training and research;

x. NOAA signed a Letter of Cooperation with PEMSEA in December 2006 covering the integrated freshwater to oceans management approach, focused on the Jiulongjiang River in the Xiamen-Zhangzhou-Longyan region of Fujian Province;

xi. Three Korean research institutions, namely Korea Maritime Institute, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, and Korea Environment Institute, signed MOUs in May 2006, to broaden knowledge sharing and capacity building in integrated coastal management in the East Asian Seas region. The MOUs provide a formal framework for organization of joint training and technical workshops, knowledge sharing, development of research initiatives, and staff exchange. The three institutions signed the Partnership Operating Arrangements at the EAS Congress 2006; and

xii. The GEF IW Learn project is a key player in the implementation of the project. Training and knowledge sharing systems of IW Learn are particularly supportive for transferring PEMSEA experience in ICM to other GEF projects in other regions, such as the Bay of Bengal, the Pacific SIDS projects, as well as collaborative efforts with the GEF Red Sea.

The project has also been developed in close consultation with UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank, in order to design a package of GEF interventions to promote and replicate the good practices derived from the Strategic Partnership. The project development also benefited from inputs provided by a number of Executing Agencies, notably IMO, FAO, UNDP SGP, UNESCO, and UNEP/COBSEA, as well as various GEF existing and pipeline projects (e.g., GEF IW Learn; Yellow Sea LME; South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand LME; Livestock Waste Management; and Manila Third Sewerage)

The EAS Partnership Council will serve as the Steering Committee for the project. The Council will include all three implementing agencies of GEF as members. The Council plays a pivotal role in coordinating contributions from UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, so that technical services and comparative advantages of each can benefit the project, and the GEF IW portfolio, as a whole.

Executing Agencies will be invited to participate in the Council as well, as partners in the development and implementation of SDS-SEA related activities. Similarly, non-GEF transboundary waters programs and funding agencies will also be invited to participate in the Council (e.g., CI; WWF). Through such partnerships, information sharing and collaborative working arrangements will be strengthened, leading to more cost-effective use of resources and on-the-ground changes. In collaboration with IW:LEARN, the project will develop and disseminate good practices and successful experiences in integrated management of marine and coastal resources globally, and at multiple geographic scales.

D. Describe the incremental reasoning of the project:

The region’s coastal ecosystems have been central to its development. As such, coral reefs, mangroves and other coastal habitats that are part of coastal ecosystems are subjected to varying degrees of pressure and are exhibiting signs of serious degradation due to human activities. The major threats to these coastal ecosystems emanate from the rapidly increasing population, as a consequence of increasing migration to coastal areas. Such threats include pollution and sedimentation, overfishing and destructive fishing, habitat loss and overexploitation, and climate change and sea-level rise.

a) Over fishing and Destructive Fishing

Many countries in the region rely heavily on the coastal areas as a source of food and livelihood. A number of areas in East Asia, which are characterized by large coastal populations (e.g., Malacca Straits; Gulf of Thailand; the Java Sea; south Kalimantan, the Arafura Sea, and Manila Bay) have experienced similar impacts as a consequence of increased demands on fisheries, such as: leveling-off of, if not decline in, landings; a decline in catch rates; a decline in captured fish lengths; an increase in trash fish; virtual disappearance of certain commercial fishes; reduced incomes; reduced resource rents; and increased competition and conflicts among fishers. Aggravating these problems is the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing occurring both within exclusive economic zones and on the high seas, which undermine efforts in managing fish stocks in all capture fisheries.

b) Habitat Destruction

The majority of the coastal habitats in the region are imperiled due to the combined effects of anthropogenic activities resulting in habitat alteration and degradation or loss. Coastal development, marine-based pollution, sedimentation, over fishing and destructive fishing are identified as the major threats to the coral reefs of the region. Coastal development, which brings about increased sedimentation due to dredging and land reclamation, is a prevalent problem in areas where rapid expansions are occurring. For instance, Singapore reefs have been reclaimed, while reefs in Bangkok and Manila Bay have been smothered and killed by sediments, sewage and dynamite fishing. In Jakarta Bay, reefs have disappeared because of mining and pollution. In the last 30 years, 11% of the region’s coral reefs collapsed, while 48% are listed in critical condition. Recent findings show 80% face risks. Unless managed properly, the region’s reefs face collapse within 20 years.

c) Pollution

The health of the Seas of East Asia is also significantly affected by river basins that are associated with the seas. Most of the pollution is due to land-based human activities, which includes municipal, industrial, agricultural and aquacultural wastes, land runoff, and atmospheric deposition. Estimates of domestic sewage treated prior to discharge amounts to only 11%, while billions of tonnes of industrial wastewater are being discharged annually from major coastal cities without pretreatment. Another 10 million tonnes of fertilizers are used each year in coastal areas, adding to the already excessive nutrient loading in receiving rivers, lakes and marine waters. The adverse impacts on public health, sustainable supply of goods and services, and the export trade of sea products are considerable. Harmful algal blooms (HABs), commonly known as red tide, have become more frequent not only in extent but also in duration for the past three decades. The frequent occurrence of red tides, some of which are toxic, has been a serious concern in the region, especially its impacts on fisheries and mariculture, in addition to its toxic effects caused by consumption of contaminated shellfish. In the Philippines, the reported cases of over 2,000 paralytic shellfish poisoning since 1983 have led to 115 deaths and economic losses of about 10 million pesos for each event. In Hong Kong, a bloom in 1998 killed off 3,500 tonnes of cultured fish or over 80% of stocks valued at US$40 million. It is further evident that the poor and destitute, a substantial number of whom live in coastal areas of the region, suffer the most as a consequence of pollution, destruction and degradation of natural resources, and contamination of drinking water and food supply.

d) Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise

Increasing emissions of green house gases and aerosols from burning of fossil fuels and extreme changes in land use and land cover is projected to effect global and regional changes in climate, affecting temperature and precipitation. In turn, sea level rise, flooding and other extreme weather disturbances are expected to create catastrophes, especially in East Asia given the region’s vast coastlines, concentrations of populations in coasts, and productive land in low-lying areas. Coupled with the loss of coral reefs and mangroves, which provide shoreline protection during hurricanes and tropical storms, the vulnerability of coastal populations and infrastructure to climate change and sea-level rise is further exacerbated. From 1995 to 2004, the cost of natural disasters in the region was estimated at more than US$ 300 billion in damages, and in excess of 445,000 human fatalities. The tsunami of 26 December 2004 killed more than 250,000 people in countries around the Indian Ocean, and caused massive losses in properties, habitats, livelihoods, infrastructure and crops. This occurrence, although immensely tragic, has spawned a renewed interest in highlighting the vulnerability of coastal ecosystems, the imminent loss of services they provide, and measures for their more effective management, including the use of ICM as a framework for coastal hazard management.

Over the past six years, the hallmark of PEMSEA has been its focus on building and strengthening intergovernmental and multi-sectoral partnerships for sustainable coasts and ocean development. The Terminal Evaluation Report on the PEMSEA Regional Programme cited a number of areas and examples where progress has been made with such partnership arrangements, including:

a. At the local level, PEMSEA successfully demonstrated the applicability and cost-effectiveness of the ICM framework and processes for achieving sustainable use of the natural resources and ensuring environmental sustainability, in collaboration with local government units, local leaders, community groups and private sector partners at 6 national ICM demonstration sites, and 18 ICM parallel sites;

b. At the national level, PEMSEA promoted the development of national coastal and ocean policies, legislation and action plans to strengthen ocean and coastal governance, by providing policy guidelines and policy briefs, and organizing policy workshops and think tanks to enhance national efforts. Partnerships among coastal provinces, municipalities, cities, national agencies, donors and NGOs facilitated the adoption of the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy and Bohai Sea Sustainable Development Strategy, the Presidential Executive Order (No. 533) adopting ICM as a National Strategy to Ensure Sustainable Development of the Coastal and Marine Environment and Resources in the Philippines, and national legislation on the Bohai Sea.

c. At the sub-regional level, PEMSEA was able to engineer a sub-regional partnership among the littoral countries of the Gulf of Thailand. The development and endorsement of the Joint Statement of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam on Partnership in Oil Spill Preparedness and Response in the Gulf of Thailand, together with a related Framework Program, provide clear evidence of the partnership that has been built, as well as spin-off benefits regarding capacity building and preparedness activities in cooperation with the petroleum industry.

d. At the regional level, the development and endorsement of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia, an unprecedented output of PEMSEA, has provided the much needed regional policy, management frameworks and platforms for regional cooperation. The outcome of the work became apparent with the signing of the Putrajaya Declaration in December 2003.

Nevertheless, as recognized in the Terminal Evaluation Report, a considerable amount of time is required for effective partnerships to be established and to take root. A regional partnership mechanism was developed by the countries as a means of coordinating the implementation of the SDS-SEA. The new mechanism was adopted by the concerned governments in December 2006 through the Haikou Partnership Agreement. The new partnership mechanism provides the needed regional institutional arrangement to consolidate these gains, and to put the implementation of the SDS-SEA on a self-sustaining path.

E. Indicate risks, including climate change risks, that might prevent the project objective(s) from being achieved and outline risk management measures:

Possible project risks and risk mitigation measures concerning the development and implementation of the project are summarized in the table below.

Risk	Risk Type	Risk Rating	Risk Mitigation
Lack of government support for the implementation of the SDS-SEA	Political	Low	Core operational activities of the project are focused on the principles, policies, strategies and processes associated with integrated coastal management (ICM), which is a framework and process that has been developed, demonstrated and verified among countries of the region (with GEF support) over the past 12 years. Six of the 8 GEF-eligible countries have national ICM demonstration sites, which will serve as learning centers for replicating and scaling up good ICM practices within their respective countries and across the region, as part of national ICM scaling up initiatives. Training and capacity development initiatives under the project are designed to build up the necessary technical and management skills, networks and partnership arrangements that will facilitate and accelerate ICM implementation. Lao PDR and Timor Leste are new Partners of PEMSEA, and therefore activities in these two countries will concentrate on capacity development and the start up and operation of their “national demonstration” projects. A number of countries have already taken the initiative to develop work programs aimed at improving national coastal and ocean governance, using the SDS-SEA as a guiding framework.
Lack of government commitment to a legal framework for governing the management of the Seas of East Asia	Political	Medium	Governments of the region have indicated that they are not willing to establish a legal framework at this point in time. Alternatively, a partnership approach has been adopted by the countries as an interim step towards a long-term, self-sustaining regional mechanism. The partnership approach is designed to build confidence and trust among the partners. Governments have signified their commitment to this partnership approach with the establishment of a functional, country-supported PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF) Secretariat Services. Three countries, China, Japan and RO Korea have committed more than US$1.3 million in cash over the next three years to support the establishment and operation of the PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF) Secretariat Services. The PRF will be the operating arm of the regional mechanism. During the project, a review of alternatives to the partnership approach will be conducted, and a Plan of Action for transforming the partnership arrangement into a long-term self-sustaining mechanism will be completed. In fact, at the 1^st EAS Partnership Council meeting held in July 2007, the intergovernmental and multisectoral Council endorsed a plan to proceed with the establishment of a legal personality for PEMSEA, including the organization and start up of a PEMSEA Partnership Fund, to serve as a financing mechanism to support the PRF operation beyond GEF’s exit as a major sponsor of the SDS-SEA implementation.
Capacity to implement the SDS-SEA varies from country-to-country, and will impede the achievement of the project’s outputs and outcomes.	Operational	Medium	The challenges associated with policy and institutional reforms are well-recognized by the PEMSEA participating countries. The Project Logical Framework (Annex B, Executive Summary) specifies that activities associated with national policy, legislative and institutional reforms will be undertaken in 5 countries over the 3-year project. The 5 countries have indicated their willingness and interest to implement these changes, and in some cases, have already commenced the process. Similar efforts in other countries will be the focus of the 2010-2013 phase of the project. This phased approach of the project enables learning and transfer of good practices from the first phase to the second phase, and to the remaining countries.
The available time and resources are too limited to achieve the identified project outputs and outcomes.	Operational	Medium	A critical factor to achieving the project outputs and outcomes within the project timeframe and budgetary allocation is the commitment of the participating governments. The project design employs a “learning by doing” approach, using ICM as the guiding framework and methodology. National and regional task forces, comprised of skilled and experienced professionals from the region, will be the “core technical support team” for the project, ensuring that the intellectual resources of countries, and the region as a whole, are utilized and strengthened, and thereby ensuring sustainability beyond the project. Output E.1, Project Logical Framework (p. 41) delineates the outputs and indicators associated with the NTF/RTF networks. Key targets of the project are policy reform, institutional arrangements and innovative financing mechanisms at the national and local levels. The implementation of national ICM scaling up programs is a primary vehicle to deliver the identified outputs. Participating countries are already aware of the modalities of, and benefits to be derived from ICM as a consequence of the PEMSEA regional project. Many countries are responding by committing considerable resources to establishing national ICM programs and support mechanisms. The project provides countries with the means to access and facilitate cooperation and assistance with regional and global partners to achieve their desired individual and collective goals.
Governments are unwilling to implement policy reforms that are necessary in order to facilitate enhanced investment in pollution reduction facilities and services.	Operational	Low	Recognizing that different governments have different policies and priorities, the project will attempt to identify and work with governments at the national and sub-national levels. Some governments have already expressed interest and willingness to implement policy reforms and/or adopt innovative and transparent mechanisms for developing, financing and managing pollution reduction facilities and services.
Governments and donors are unwilling to collaborate in a Strategic Partnership for pollution reduction arrangement, preferring conventional bilateral approaches.	Operational	Low	The 11^th Project Steering Committee of the PEMSEA Regional Programme passed a resolution endorsing the Strategic Partnership approach. It is apparent that participating governments are encouraged by this attempt to build cooperative arrangements among the numerous funding agencies and donors to reduce overlap and duplication of effort. The Strategic Partnership has been designed as a flexible and innovative prototype. The World Bank and UNDP will be the early partners with the countries, implementing innovative and complementary projects and activities aimed at reducing barriers to investments in pollution reduction facilities. As part of the project, a multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary team comprised of representatives from government, financing institutions, donors, NGOs, and the private sector will coordinate and facilitate the implementation of a replication strategy aimed at increasing and strengthening pollution reduction investments, founded on good practices and innovative approaches demonstrated by the Strategic Partnership. A series of promotional and stock-taking workshops and events will be organized for the purpose of sharing knowledge and benefits derived from the Strategic Partnership, and from the specific projects undertaken by the Strategic Partnership, thereby generating interest and participation from a wider group of donors, governments and private sector interest groups.

F. explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design:

Replicability is an integral element of the scaling-up thrust and hence the cost-effectiveness of SDS-SEA implementation strategy and the Strategic Partnership.

The project covers a wide range of stakeholders, issues, constraints, activities, outputs and outcomes. Activities undertaken within the project are interrelated at several different levels, and will require a concentrated effort to optimize the replication potential. A fundamental criterion of the project is to build replicability into each component during the planning stage. This approach requires that three ingredients be incorporated at the project and sub-project levels, namely: capacity assessment; communication; and partnership development.

Table 1: Indicative Budget for Replication Activities

Type of Replication Activity	Responsible Parties	Budget US$ (excluding Project Team Staff Time)
1. Project Replication Team: Ø evaluation of potential sites for replication Ø evaluation of sub-projects for good practices Ø competency of local governments/ private sector as partners in replication Ø technical assistance/advice	PRF Technical Services	80,750
2. PEMSEA Resource Facility – Project Replication Unit Ø Packaging and dissemination of good practices Ø SP website Ø Promotion of replication opportunities Ø Regional national seminars Ø Facilitation of PPP arrangements Ø Linkages with other partnership networks Ø One stop PPP support service for replication and scaling up	PRF Technical Services	37,100
3. Strategic Partnership Technical Team: Ø Implementation of communication plan Ø Formulation of sub-project replication strategy (local, national, regional) Ø Monitoring, evaluating and reporting the progress of the various subprojects conducted Ø Organization of annual workshops and mid-term stocktaking Ø Partnership building among sub-regional projects/programs	PRF Technical Services World Bank Fund Management Team UNDP	318,390
TOTAL		436,420

part iii: institutional coordination and support

A. Project Implementation Arrangement:

The project will be implemented by the UNDP, with UNOPS as the Executing Agency, and the PEMSEA Resource Facility providing the day-to-day management and coordinating function for project activities.

The EAS Partnership Council will provide guidance throughout the project and will serve as the Project Steering Committee for the project. The EAS Partnership Council and the EAS Congress will provide the project with access to a wide audience of concerned stakeholders, monitoring overall progress, facilitating coordination across programs and projects, strengthening transfer of knowledge and good practices and avoiding duplication of effort through the development and adoption of a six-year partnership program.

The PEMSEA Resource Facility will serve the pivotal project management function, providing technical and management services that include:

i. implementing the EAS Partnership Council’s decisions concerning policy and operating modalities for the GEF project;

ii. developing, coordinating and implementing the GEF project in collaboration with participating countries, partners and collaborators;

iii. preparing and submitting annual consolidated reports to Council on the GEF project development and implementation, including financial statements;

iv. providing technical, financial, investment and management support for specific projects and programs within the framework of the SDS-SEA;

v. developing and implementing a process of recognizing and certifying good practices in SDS-SEA implementation;

vi. monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the SDS-SEA to the EAS Partnership Council and the EAS Congress; and

vii. coordinating the development of a long-term, self-sustaining regional arrangement with its own legal identity, taking into account changing conditions, emerging issues and other related factors.

part iv: explain the alignment of project design with the original PIF:

There were no major discrepancies between the approved allocation of GEF funds, and the actual commitment of GEF funds during project implementation. There was a cost overrun during the baseline assessment phase of the project, due primarily to the substantial volume of information (i.e., $43.5 billion in baseline activities/programs were collated and analyzed). The cost overrun of $17,845 was addressed through savings in the other 5 components of the project.

Co-financing expenditures (actual) exceeded co-financing commitments (planned) by $95,700, primarily as a consequence of the extensive national and regional consultations that occurred in 2006. The additional expenditures were absorbed by co-convenors of the various workshops and meetings conducted as part of the consultative process, including the workshops and side events organized during the EAS Congress 2006.

part v: Agency(ies) certification

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement.

John Hough

UNDP/GEF Executive Coordinator

Anna Tengberg

Project Contact Person

Date: 10 October 2007

Tel. and Email:+66 2288 2730

Anna.Tengberg@undp.org

Narrative Summary	Indicators[6]	Means of Verification	Assumptions/Risks
Development Objective: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) through mobilization of the necessary partnership arrangements, operating mechanisms, intellectual capital, support services and resources for the achievement of their shared vision of sustainable use of coastal and marine resources of the region and the development targets of the WSSD Plan of Implementation.	ü (P) EAS Partnership Council meeting at regular intervals, guiding and coordinating the Regional Framework of Partnership Programmes for SDS-SEA implementation; ü (P) Countries committing high-level officers to participate in the EAS Partnership Council; ü (P) Plan of action adopted by the EAS Partnership Council, transforming the regional partnership mechanism into a long term, sustainable mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation	ü quarterly progress reports ü annual reports ü Tripartite Review assessments ü Mid-term and terminal project evaluations	Risk is minimized due to the following critical assumptions: ü Countries signed the Putrajaya Declaration indicating their willingness to cooperate to achieve the objectives of the SDS-SEA at the national and regional levels; ü The current GEF-supported project established working mechanisms, partnership arrangements, trust and confidence among countries and stakeholders to develop and implement the SDS-SEA.
Immediate Objective 1: Implementation of action programs of the SDS-SEA aimed at legal, policy and institutional reforms, and investments, at the local, national and regional levels, with a particular focus on scaling up and sustaining integrated coastal management (ICM) practices to reduce coastal and marine degradation.	ü (P) Related national policies and institutional mechanisms adopted in place and operational in two countries, initiated in three countries; ü (SR) At least 5% of the total coastline of the region initiating or implementing ICM programs; ü (SR) 3 pollution hotspots with adopted investment plans for pollution reduction facilities and services.	ü Same as above ü Regional State of Coasts report 2009	ü Some countries are already developing policies/policy reforms aimed at improving coastal and ocean governance; ü National governments will build upon the 8 national demonstration sites established in the previous GEF-supported projects; ü Coastal strategies and action plans have been formulated and adopted, focused on sustainable development, with pollution reduction a priority.
Immediate Objective 2: Verification, dissemination and promotion of the replication of lessons and best practices arising from the regional partnership arrangements in collaboration with IW: Learn and other partners.	ü (P) Agreements signed with at least 2 Areas of Excellence for developing and transferring innovative technologies and approaches in support national and local government with SDS-SEA implementation ü (P) 5 country-based National Task Forces assisting national and local governments with the implementation/scaling up of ICM programs ü (P) e-learning and knowledge sharing portal transferring lessons and good practices in collaboration with IW-LEARN ü (P) PEMSEA network of local governments advocating good practices in ICM	ü Same as above	ü A core of intellectual capital, management skills, good practices and innovative technologies is already available within the region; ü The disparity in capacity within and among countries can be minimized with the establishment of national training programs, skilled trainers, knowledge sharing networks, and a policy environment for ICM implementation; ü A number of local governments in the region are deriving benefits from ICM programs, and serve as working models for others.
Immediate Objective 3: A Strategic Partnership between participating countries, UNDP, the World Bank and other stakeholders to stimulate and co-finance site-specific private and/or public-private land-based pollution reduction investments under the GEF/World Bank Pollution Reduction Investment Fund for the LMEs of East Asia.	ü (P) Partnerships between public and private sectors at ICM sites ü (P) Policy reforms resulting in increased investments in pollution reduction at ICM sites by public and private sectors ü (SR) Project Preparation Revolving Fund operating under an Agreement between GEF, World Bank, UNDP, and the PRF, and facilitating local government and private sector investment in pollution reduction facilities and services	ü Same as above ü Economic development plans of countries ü World Bank Country Assistance Strategy	ü The private sector represents a virtually untapped resource with respect to pollution reduction investment in the region ü National governments are interested in engaging the private sector in environmental infrastructure projects ü World Bank is committed to the removal of barriers and constraints to environmental investments in the region.
COMPONENT A: A FUNCTIONAL REGIONAL MECHANISM FOR SDS-SEA IMPLEMENTATION
Outcome 1: An intergovernmental multi-sectoral EAS Partnership Council, coordinating, evaluating and refining the implementation of the SDS-SEA, and advancing the regional partnership arrangement to a higher level.
Output A.1: A country-owned regional mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation
A.1.1 6-year framework of partnership programs established	ü (P) 6-year framework of partnership programs adopted by the EAS Partnership Council	ü Tripartite Review proceedings ü Mid-term and terminal project evaluations ü Proceedings of EAS Partnership Council meetings	Assumptions: ü The consultation process leading to the development of the regional mechanism has been extensive. Countries are already committed to integration of SDS-SEA objectives and mechanisms into their national programs. Risk: Low
A.1.2 Voluntary regional Partnership Fund developed and operational	ü (P) Partnership Fund adopted by the EAS Partnership Council	ü Governing Body rules and regulations ü Annual report on Partnership Fund ü Proceedings of EAS Partnership Council Fund Manager identified; ü Funds deposited with a financial institution.	Assumptions: ü To ensure country and donor buy-in, the project will conduct consultations and solicit participation in the needs analysis for such a fund, and any feasibility study concerning the design of the fund. Countries, donor agencies, financial institutions and NGOs will be involved in the process. Risk: Medium ü The objectives of the Partnership Fund may not be understood/appreciated by some collaborators.
A.1.3 Sustainable PRF Secretariat supported by countries and other partners	ü (P) Cost-Sharing Agreements signed with countries and partners providing funding and in-kind support for the operation of the regional mechanism	ü Cost-Sharing Agreements	Assumptions: ü Three countries that have pledged to support the PRF Secretariat Services for the first three years of operation will honor their commitments. Within that time, the value-added benefits of the PRF will have been established. Risk: Low
A.1.4 Triennial EAS Congress conducted on a continuing basis	ü (P) EAS Partnership Council decides to sustain the EAS Congress as a triennial event.	ü EAS Congress proceedings	Assumptions: ü EAS Congress in 2003 was considered highly successful; ü EAS Congress 2006 has more than doubled interest and support; ü The EAS Congress is already recognized by government and non-government sectors as a forum for enhancing their respective objectives. Risk: Low
A.1.5 State of Coasts reporting system in place	ü (P) EAS Partnership Council adopts the State of Coasts reporting system; ü (P) Cambodia, China, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Singapore, RO Korea, regional organizations and projects, and concerned international agencies and donors complete national and regional SOC reports ü (P) Regional State of Coasts report submitted to EAS Congress/Ministerial Forum 2009	ü National State of Coasts reports ü Regional State of Coast report ü EAS Congress proceedings	Assumptions: ü Several countries in the region have experience in developing status reports on the environment. Thus, the expertise and information are available. ü The SOC reporting system is seen by countries and other stakeholders as adding value to current initiatives covering national and regional environmental monitoring and reporting, by providing a common framework and methodology for allowing cross-comparison and integration. Risk: Medium ü The variety of ecological, cultural, economic, governing, and social dimensions of the region will make it difficult to define an agreed set of core indicators for regional monitoring and reporting. However, the Regional Task Force will be asked to identify and group issues into broad categories, and come up with indicators for each category that will “tell the story” about a particular category. The idea will be to start with what is doable and value-added, and strengthen the monitoring and reporting system over time.
Output A.2: A Plan of Action for transforming PEMSEA into a long term, self-sustained regional implementing mechanism for the SDS-SEA
A.2.1 Benefits and constraints of different operating and administrative arrangements reviewed and discussed among countries, with recommendations to be considered by countries and their partners for transformation to a long term, self-sustained regional implementing mechanism for the SDS-SEA.	ü (P) Series of seminars/ consultations involving Foreign Affairs, national focal agencies and other stakeholder groups from participating countries	ü Seminar/consultation meeting reports	Assumptions: ü Countries recognize the need and benefits to working together to address sustainable development issues related to coasts and oceans; ü The regional partnership mechanism under the UN framework is a first step; the ultimate goal for PEMSEA is a legal regional instrument. Risk: Medium ü Some countries may still have doubts about a legal instrument. However, the partnership mechanism is designed to build confidence and trust among the partners regarding SDS-SEA implementation.
A.2.2 Plan of Action for a long term, self-sustained regional mechanism developed	ü (P) Plan of Action tabled/consensus achieved during regional consultation	ü Plan of Action
A.2.3 Plan of Action endorsed to the EAS Partnership Council 2008	ü (P) Plan of Action adopted and incorporated into the work program of EAS Partnership Council	ü EAS Partnership Council proceedings
A.2.4 Plan of Action initiated, including preparation of working documents for the PEMSEA transformation.	ü (P) Drafting of working documents initiated	ü EAS Partnership Council proceedings ü TOR and schedule of work approved ü Draft working documents
COMPONENT B: NATIONAL POLICIES AND REFORMS FOR SUSTAINABLE COASTAL AND OCEAN GOVERNANCE
Outcome 2: National policies and programs on sustainable coastal and ocean development mainstreamed into social and economic development programs of participating countries
Output B.1: An agreed framework, methodology and indicators for social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors developed and demonstrated in two countries of the region.
B.1.1 An agreed framework, methodology and appropriate indicators for assessing social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors within the East Asian region.	ü (P) Common framework, methodology and indicators adopted and applied by Philippines and RO Korea	ü Regional Task Force report ü Methodology/Guide for Assessing Social and Economic Contributions of Coastal and Marine Areas/Sectors	Assumptions: ü Methodologies and indicators can be identified, verified and applied in the assessment of coastal and ocean contribution to overall social and economic development, building on the progress made in the existing efforts to develop the methodology and in collaboration with other partners; ü Countries or relevant agencies are willing to share information. Risk: Low
B.1.2 Two (2) national assessments of the social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors in participating countries.	ü (P) Philippines and RO Korea reports prepared/published	ü National workshop proceedings ü Philippines and RO Korea country reports
B.1.3 One (1) regional forum for senior managers and policy-makers covering social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors and promoting policy reforms for strengthening coastal and ocean governance.	ü (P) Senior managers and policymakers participate in regional forum during the EAS Congress 2009	ü Proceedings of the Regional Forum on Policy Reforms for Strengthening Coastal and Ocean Governance
Output B.2: National policy, legislative and institutional reforms, and interagency and multi-sectoral coordinating mechanisms aimed at improved integrated management of marine and coastal areas.
B.2.1 Two (2) participating countries develop, adopt and implement, and three (3) countries initiate: a. national SDS-SEA policy and national multi-sectoral and interagency coordinating mechanisms for the implementation of the SDS-SEA; and b. 6-year framework plans for the implementation of the SDS-SEA, including ICM scaling-up programs, strategies, time-bound management targets, priority actions and implementing arrangements for the implementation of SDS-SEA, in consultation with stakeholders.	ü (P) RO Korea and Vietnam adopt and implement policy reforms for integrated management of coastal and marine areas ü (P) China, Philippines and Thailand initiate policy reforms for integrated management of coastal and marine areas ü (P) Interagency and multi-sectoral coordinating mechanisms established and operating in RO Korea and Vietnam to coordinate the implementation of the SDS-SEA ü (P) 6-year framework plans adopted in RO Korea and Vietnam, with relevant agencies allocating resources and assigning managers and staff to implement work programs	ü Mid-term Evaluation report ü Terminal Evaluation report ü 6-year framework plans of RO Korea and Vietnam ü national State of Coasts reports of China, Philippines, RO Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam ü regional State of Coasts report	Assumptions: ü Political will and commitments can be mobilized to address the need for multi-sector and multidisciplinary management mechanisms for national coastal and policy development and implementation; ü By signing the Putrajaya Declaration and Haikou Partnership Agreement, governments have already indicated their concern and willingness to strengthen coastal and ocean policies and programs, in accordance with the SDS-SEA implementation. Risk: Low
B.2.2 One (1) regional workshop regarding integrated management of marine and coastal areas.	ü (P) Policymakers and senior managers participate in the regional workshop	ü Proceedings of the regional workshop
COMPONENT C: Scaling Up ICM Programs
Outcome 3: Integrated coastal management (ICM) scaled up as an on-the-ground framework for achieving sustainable development of coastal lands and waters in at least 5% of the total coastline of the region by 2010.
Output C.1: Institutional arrangements for national ICM programs in place
C.1.1 "Leadership Forums on ICM" conducted in five (5) countries.	ü (P) Senior managers and policymakers participate in national forums in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam ü (P) Plan of action for policy development/reform	ü Proceedings of Leadership Forums ü National Plans of Action	Assumptions: ü Policymakers and managers are interested in strengthening coastal and ocean governance Risk: Low
C.1.2 Two (2) participating countries to develop, adopt and implement, and three (3) participating countries to initiate: a) strategies/policies/ legislation for ICM programs; b) 6-year action plans for ICM implementation, with time-bound management targets and implementing arrangements as part of the overall SDS-SEA implementation plan.	ü (P) ICM policies/legislation and 6-year action plans for ICM implementation adopted and implemented in China and the Philippines, and initiated in Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam; ü (P) Interagency, multi-sectoral coordinating committees for ICM program established in China and the Philippines, providing planning, direction-setting, decision-making and evaluation for program	ü ICM policies and strategies ü 6-year action plans for ICM implementation ü Proceedings of interagency meetings ü National ICM programs with targets and timetables	Assumptions: ü National governments and stakeholders are committed to develop and implement national ICM policies and programs. ü Countries are able to support and leverage funding to sustain the operation of national ICM programs. ü Local governments in the region have the capacity to apply the ICM framework and process, with some technical assistance, capacity building and incentives. Risk: Low
C.1.3 Systematic process for monitoring, evaluating and reporting the effectiveness of national and local ICM programs implemented.	ü (P) Systematic monitoring, evaluation and reporting system for ICM adopted and implemented in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam ü (P) Regional State of Coasts report submitted to EAS Congress/Ministerial Forum 2009 ü (SR) 5% of the region’s coastline confirmed to be initiating or implementing ICM programs ü (ESSI) Increased stakeholder participation in coastal governance at the local and country levels ü (ESSI) Implementation of strategic action plans within ICM framework in targeted coastal areas result in: reductions in nutrient loadings ranging from 10-50%; 5%-10% of habitats identified as protected areas and/or undergoing restoration; improvements in fishery management and stabilization of some coastal fish stocks and alternate increase in biomass.	ü Country State of Coasts reports ü Regional State of Coast report	Assumptions: ü A number of countries in the region already have the capacity for national environmental monitoring and reporting systems. Risk: Medium ü Countries may not be willing to share information. However, only those countries willing to share information will be targeted. The idea is to start with a limited number of willing participating countries (5 to 7).
Output C.2: Capacity building strengthened for local government ICM programs
C.2.1 Existing ICM sites operating as working models and supporting their respective national ICM programs	ü (P) Coastal strategies adopted and implemented by local governments (Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) ü (P) Good practices and case studies documented for replication/use in national scaling up programs	ü Good practices ü Case studies ü Socio-economic assessments ü Study tour/site visits	Assumptions: ü Existing PEMSEA ICM sites have a solid foundation of technical and management skills, and the political commitment to implement their coastal strategies. ü The benefits being derived through ICM programs are attractive to other local governments in the country. Risk: Low
C.2.2 ICM learning networks and training programs set up in 3 countries	ü (P) Learning networks incorporated into national ICM scaling up programs in Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam ü (P) National Task Forces for ICM set up in China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam, and providing technical assistance to local government units	ü National ICM Scaling up Programs ü Training program reports and evaluations ü Training certificates issued ü National ICM monitoring and evaluation reports	Assumptions: ü National ICM demonstration sites serve as good knowledge/training centers in support of national ICM scaling up programs. ü PEMSEA’s case studies, training modules/materials and other information will provide a sound basis for training programs. ü Governments, donors and international agencies and organizations are interested in leveraging local government interest and commitments to ICM ü When combined with the awareness building, policy reforms and programs of national governments, the intensive training program is expected to drive national scaling up programs. Risk: Medium ü National governments may be reluctant or unwilling to take the lead in the development of national ICM scaling up programs. To reduce the risk, the GEF project will initially focus on countries which are willing to commit time and resources to ICM scaling up.
C.2.3 ICM training manuals, practical guides and case studies, developed in support of training-of-trainers and training of NTF members at the regional and national levels, and training of ICM managers and implementers at the sub-national level.	ü ICM training manual developed and published ü (P) 10 trainers accredited for ICM training ü (P) 200 newly trained ICM practitioners engaged in ICM programs	ü Training certificates issued ü Training manuals/programs published
C.2.4 ICM Good Practices Award developed, recognizing local governments that have displayed commitment and achievement in the implementation of ICM programs.	ü (P) EAS Partnership Council establishes ICM Awards Committee and Good Practices Award eligibility criteria and operating modality established ü (P) Awards presented to local governments	ü Proceedings of the EAS Partnership Council ü Annual report of ICM Awards Committee	Assumptions: ü Governments, donors and international agencies and organizations are interested in leveraging local government interest and commitments to ICM. ü An award system provides local governments with recognition and incentive. Risk: Medium ü The award may not serve as sufficient incentive for local governments to take up ICM and achieve the 5% coverage target. However, when combined with the awareness building, policy reforms and programs of national governments, the award system is to further encourage implementation and competition among sites.
Output C.3: An ICM Code adopted by national and local governments for voluntary use as a standard for certification/recognition of ICM sites
C.3.1 ICM Code, audit guide and training program tested/verified	ü (P) Peer Review Group, comprised of national and international specialists in ICM, organized to guide and review Code development ü (P) PEMSEA ICM Code developed and adopted by the EAS Partnership Council as a standard for voluntary use by national and local governments in ICM program development and implementation.	ü ICM Code, Auditor’s Guide and Training Manual ü EAS Partnership Council proceedings	Assumptions: ü PEMSEA’s experience in ICM development and implementation in the East Asian region over the past 12 years provides a sound foundation for the development and implementation of an ICM Code; Risk: Low ü ICM practitioners may disagree on the core requirements, processes and methodologies for developing and implementing ICM. However, PEMSEA’s ICM sites serve as working models of the effectiveness, sustainability and replicability of local government programs in integrated management of coastal and marine areas.
C.3.2 ICM Certification/ Recognition system, adopted and tested in collaboration with national governments, the PNLG, donors, and other concerned stakeholders, as a service of the PEMSEA Resource Facility.	ü (P) ICM certification/ recognition system tested at 2 ICM sites ü (P) ICM Certification/ Recognition service prepared by PRF	ü ICM recognition certificates ü PRF business plan	Assumptions; ü National and local governments want an ICM Certification/Recognition System that provides international standards and serves as an incentive for governments to adopt and implement ICM. Risk: Low ü Governments may be unwilling to adopt and implement the ICM Code. However, the ICM Code will be an international standard for voluntary use by governments. No government will be obliged to adopt it. The Code and its supporting guides and manuals will aid governments by providing a systematic approach for implementing and sustaining their coastal management programs.
Output C.4: A PSHEM Code adopted and implemented by national governments and the private sector for voluntary use by port authorities and those companies operating in a port as a standard for certification/recognition of a Port Safety, Health and Environmental Management System (PSHEMS)
C.4.1 PSHEM Code recognized by international agencies, authorities and associations with concerns/focus on port development and operations.	ü (P) PSHEM Code adopted for voluntary use as a standard for measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of PSHEMS in ports by concerned government agencies, international agencies and organizations	ü Agreements between PEMSEA and national agencies and international agencies/ organizations	Assumptions: ü National governments and concerned international agencies and associations recognize of an international standard for integrated port management. Risk: Low ü An International Peer Review Group has already provided input to the Code.
C.4.2 PSHEMS initiated in three (3) ports, building capacity within the region/ports on PSHEMS application.	ü (P) Training on PSHE-MS implementation cost-shared with port authorities and companies operating in ports	ü Agreements between PEMSEA and port authorities ü Training reports	Assumptions: ü PEMSEA’s experience in development and testing of the PSHEM Code, including the training materials and capacity building program for establishing a PSHEMS in a port provide a sound foundation for the development and implementation of the project. Risk: Low
C.4.3 PSHEMS Certification/ Recognition system set in place, in collaboration with national governments, private sector, donors, and other concerned stakeholders.	ü (SR) PSHEMS Certification/Recognition issued to port authorities and companies operating in ports ü (SR) Reductions in the number of accidents/ environmental incidents in ports ü (SR) PRF providing PSHEM Certification/Recognition service	ü Applications from Port Authorities/ operating companies for PSHEMS Certification/ Recognition ü Annual surveillance reports on Certificate holders	Assumptions: ü Port authorities and companies operating in ports want a PSHEMS Certification/ Recognition System that provides international acknowledgment. Risk: Low
COMPONENT D: TWINNING ARRANGEMENTS FOR RIVER BASIN AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT
Outcome 4: South-south and north-south twinning arrangements established for integrated management of watersheds, estuaries and adjacent coastal seas, promoting knowledge and experience sharing and collaboration for the implementation of management programs in environmental hotspots of the region
Output D.1: Regional twinning arrangements developed and implemented for site-specific river basin and coastal area management programs
D.1.1 Capacity building and training, staff exchanges, internships/on-the-job training, study tours/site visits, technology transfer, and technical cooperation and assistance.	ü (P) Twinning and partnership arrangements negotiated and signed between the interested sites, institutions and/or programs for the application of ecosystem management approaches and for the strengthening of marine protected areas	ü MOAs/MOUs or similar agreements between twinning partners ü Annual meetings/ workshop proceedings	Assumptions: ü Other regional and extra-regional projects and programs are willing to serve as twinning partners with the selected sites, as a contribution to the implementation of the SDS-SEA and its objectives and targets. Risk: Low
D.1.2 Regional secretariat set up to coordinate and facilitate activities across the sites, including the organization of an annual workshop.	ü (P) Regional secretariat for the Twinning Arrangements in place in Seoul, RO Korea, and operational, supported by participating governments	ü Secretariat office staffed by national personnel	Assumptions: ü Countries recognize the need for coordination and sharing of experiences from Twinning Arrangements among countries within the region and elsewhere. Risk: Low
D.1.3 Site specific river basins and coastal seas management programs established in: a. Bohai Sea; b. Manila Bay; c. Gulf of Thailand; d. Jakarta Bay; and e. Masan-Chinhae Bay.	ü (SR) a management program in accordance with the Bohai Sea Sustainable Development Strategy (BS-SDS), focusing on a selected watershed area and addressing water pollution reduction and related financing and investment options ü (SR) the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy, covering integrated watershed and coastal area management, the implementation of the Clean Water Act, and focusing on an investment plan for sewage and sanitation facilities and services in the Pasig River-Laguna de Bay watershed, in collaboration with the World Bank/GEF Manila Third Sewerage Project; ü (SR) the Gulf of Thailand Joint Statement/Framework Programme initiated with a sub-regional institutional arrangement development/agreement among the three (3) signatory countries and partnerships forged with industry/private sector for capacity enhancement in oil spill prevention, preparedness and response; ü (SR) A river basin-coastal area ecosystem-based management strategy for sustainable development of a watershed area in Jakarta Bay. ü (P) Case studies on the experience and lessons gained from the development of a total pollution load management (TPLM) plan for Masan-Chinhae Bay	ü Operational Plans and budget commitments for identified ecosystem-based management projects ü Investment plans submitted to Strategic Partnership ü Joint exercises/training program reports among the three countries in the Gulf of Thailand; ü Case study/ methodology on the implementation of TPLM.	Assumptions: ü Countries support proposed actions that complement existing operational programs in Manila Bay, Bohai Sea and Gulf of Thailand, and help address and overcome existing technical/scientific, institutional, social and financial barriers to programme implementation. ü Authorities in Indonesia recognize that the Jakarta Bay project will benefit from the previous PEMSEA experiences in Manila Bay and Bohai Sea. Risk: Medium ü The institutional barriers to establishing and implementing an ecosystem-based management program on a basin-wide basis may discourage governments and stakeholders from an integrated management approach. However, in the Bohai Sea, Manila Bay and Gulf of Thailand, there is already awareness and support among concerned government agencies, levels of government and stakeholder groups for an integrated management strategy and approach to sustainable development of coastal and watershed areas. By strengthening capacities of core personnel and major stakeholders in ecosystem-based management, and building awareness and confidence across sectors, the project will provide a means to addressing major barriers in a transparent and comprehensive manner.
D.1.4 Twinning arrangements expanded to other priority watershed areas/sub-regional pollution hotspots, such as the Mekong River, Red River, and Pearl River.	ü (P) Agreements on twinning and partnership arrangements negotiated and signed with the interested sites.	ü MOAs/MOUs or similar agreements between twinning partners ü Annual meetings/ workshop proceedings	Assumptions: ü Other regional and extra-regional projects and programs are willing to serve as twinning partners with the selected sites, as a contribution to the implementation of the SDS-SEA and its objectives and targets. Risk: Low
D.1.5 One regional workshop conducted to evaluate the results of the twinning activities, and the potential for replication in other areas.	ü (P) Regional workshop attended by twinning partners during the EAS Congress 2009 ü (P) Replication plan developed and endorsed by the Regional Workshop to the EAS Partnership Council	ü Proceedings of the Regional Workshop ü Replication Plan	Assumptions: ü Good practices in ecosystem-based management and innovative approaches to overcoming barriers to investment in environmental infrastructure are recognized as essential elements of sustainable development programs. ü Replication plans provide governments and investors with a framework for addressing pollution issues in a rational and affordable manner. Risk: Low
COMPONENT E: INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Outcome 5: Use of the region’s intellectual capital and human resources strengthened, and addressing policy, economic, scientific, technical and social challenges and constraints to integrated management and sustainable use of the marine and coastal environment and resources of the Seas of East Asia
Output E.1: An enhanced technical support network for countries, comprised of a Regional Task Force (RTF) and country-based National Task Forces (NTF)
E.1.1 A systematic mechanism for the mobilization of the RTF and NTFs set in place and operational, including appropriate incentive and recognition systems, codes of conduct, and training and evaluation programs.	ü (P) Agreements signed with RTF members and members of 3 NTFs (Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam). ü (P) RTF/NTF Training programs implemented ü (P) System in place for monitoring and evaluating RTF and NTF members, and for recognizing their contributions.	ü PEMSEA RTF and NTF database ü MOAs/MOUs or similar agreements with RTF members ü Training workshop reports	Assumptions: ü There is a core of existing knowledge and capacity residing in government agencies and institutions and universities, and among various sectors, for sustainable development and management of marine and coastal resources. ü Governments, universities and non-government organizations support the strengthening and mobilization of region’s intellectual capital and human resources to resolve environmental problems at the local, national and regional levels. Risks: Low ü There may be limited interest in establishing/ strengthening RTF and NTF roles and capacities. However, PEMSEA’s experience over the past six years has confirmed the support for and value of the RTF approach, both by the recipients of RTF assistance, and by the RTF members themselves. In addition, national consultations undertaken during the PDF-B initiative confirmed national government support for the development and mobilization of NTFs as part of ICM scaling up programs.
E.1.2 A core of individuals in participating countries with ICM experience serving as members of NTFs, focused primarily on the development and implementation of national ICM scaling up programs.	ü (P) ICM technical services provided by NTFs in Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam	ü Country reports to EAS Partnership Council
E.1.3 Skills and capacities of RTF and NTF members enhanced through training workshops, training of trainers, on-the-job experience, and staff exchanges.	ü (P) 50 RTF and NTF members trained in policy development, and technical services covering ICM development and implementation, eco-system-based management and State of Coasts reporting	ü Training reports ü Certificates issued to RTF and NTF members ü PEMSEA RTF/NTF database
E.1.4 RTF and NTF members conduct national and regional training workshops, transferring tools and skills for the implementation of SDS-SEA at the local, national and sub-regional levels.	ü (P) 3 regional training workshops (i.e., methodology for assessing social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors; eco-system-based management; and State of Coasts reporting) conducted; ü (P) 3 sub-regional training workshops (i.e., oil spill prevention and response; contingency planning and recovery of costs from oil spills; and sensitivity mapping) conducted; and ü (P) 10 national training workshops (i.e., ICM policy/program development; national assessment of social and economic contributions of coastal and marine areas/sectors; eco-system based management; national State of Coasts reporting; and innovative financing policies and mechanisms for environmental investments) conducted	ü Training modules/programs ü Training workshop reports ü Training Certificates issued ü PEMSEA RTF/NTF database
Output E.2: Areas of Excellence (AOEs) Program and a regional network of universities/scientific institutions supporting SDS-SEA implementation at the national and local levels
E.2.1 Partnership agreements negotiated with two (2) internationally and regionally recognized Areas of Excellence to provide scientific and technical inputs to the implementation of SDS-SEA at the national and regional levels	ü (P) Agreements signed with 2 Areas of Excellence operating within existing research institutions and institutions of higher learning, focusing on: monitoring changes in the marine environment; habitat restoration and rehabilitation; and ocean policy and international conventions.	ü MOAs/MOUs or similar agreements between AOEs and PRF ü Work Programs for AOEs ü Technical/scientific reports and/or policy briefs by AOEs ü AOE reports to the EAS Partnership Council	Assumptions: ü Scientific institutions that are recognized internationally and regionally as Areas or Centers of Excellence are willing to expand their horizons, by sharing knowledge, skills and innovative technologies and approaches across the region; Risk: Low
E.2.2 Linkages with national universities and donors strengthened to augment scientific support to national ICM programs and ecosystem-based management of watersheds and coastal areas.	ü (P) Agreements signed with national universities, research institutes and donors to augment scientific support and advice in ICM programs at the national and local levels, as well as ecosystem-based management of watersheds and coastal areas.	ü MOAs/MOUs or similar agreements between institutions and PEMSEA ü Country reports to EAS Partnership Council ü Case studies/good practices evaluations	Assumptions: ü Scientific input is essential to the enhancement of policies and decisions regarding sustainable development of marine and coastal resources. Universities and scientific and technical institutions are willing and capable of providing sound scientific advice to policy-makers and managers. Integrated management approaches provide the opportunity. ü Risk: Low
E.2.3 Reporting and information-sharing system developed to disseminate the outputs of the AoE program and networking of universities.	ü (P) Workshop co-organized by AOEs under the theme, Applying Management-Related Science and Technology to SDS-SEA implementation, at EAS Congress 2009	ü EAS Congress proceedings	Assumptions: ü The EAS Congress provides AOEs and scientific and technical institutions from the region with an international venue for sharing their knowledge, research results, experiences and technologies. Risks: Low
Output E.3: Professional upgrade program, graduate scholarships and specialized training courses
E.3.1 Internships, senior fellowships and specialized training opportunities provided in cooperation with PEMSEA Partners, AoEs, and collaborating institutions and organizations.	ü (P) Agreements signed with collaborating institutions and organizations ü (P) Training modules/ programs prepared, addressing priority needs/capacity disparities ü (P) Training schedules promoted, providing capacity development opportunities at national and sub-national levels	ü Agreements with collaborating institutions and organizations ü Training modules, programs and schedules	Assumptions: ü Training modules and programs, developed and applied under PEMSEA, can serve as the foundation for enhanced/updated training programs. ü There is a demand for internships and fellowships among government agencies and scientific and technical institutions in the region. Risk: Low
E.3.2 Standardization of a post-graduate ICM curriculum promoted amongst participating universities in the region.	ü (P) Agreements signed with collaborating universities ü (P) Post graduate ICM curriculum developed and professional upgrade program established facilitating the process of graduate scholarships, international internships and senior fellowships within and outside the region.	ü Agreements with collaborating universities ü Teaching materials and curriculum ü University courses/graduate programs	Assumptions: ü Universities in the region are committed to strengthen their ICM postgraduate programs to meet increasing demand for qualified coastal management experts. Risk: Low
E.3.3 Specialized training courses produce the necessary human resources for implementation of the SDS-SEA.	ü (P) 10 specialized training courses conducted in environmental risk assessment; coastal use zoning; natural resource damage assessment; and IIMS development/ application	ü Training workshop reports ü Training certificates issued to 90 trainees	Assumptions: ü Specialized training programs developed under PEMSEA have been tested and proven. There is a demand to extend these trainings. Risk: Low
E.3.4 Effectiveness of professional upgrading, graduate scholarships, and specialized training courses verified.	ü (P) Specialized skills being applied by PEMSEA trainees and graduates in national and sub-national programs and projects	ü Survey report	Assumptions: ü Governments and institutions are aware that the nomination and selection of appropriate candidates for professional upgrading, scholarships and specialized training is critical, in order to ensure that new skills will be applied in support of SDS-SEA implementation. Risk: Low
Output E.4: An internet-based information portal in place, building awareness and transferring knowledge and lessons learned
E.4.1 PEMSEA’s internet portal (www.pemsea.org) operating as an information node of the PEMSEA Regional Programme	ü (P) Information concerning national ICM scaling up programs and local, national and international partnership arrangements for SDS-SEA implementation shared through portal, in collaboration with GEF IW Learn.	ü PEMSEA website	Assumptions: ü PEMSEA’s website has over 2 million hits per year, and is accessible in countries throughout the region. It is already recognized as a primary source of information regarding on-the-ground actions in the region. The learning network can build on that foundation. Risk: Low
E.4.2 Develop and implement information dissemination and knowledge sharing systems using four principal channels:	ü (P) Agreement signed/ implemented with GEF IW:LEARN, regarding disseminating regional lessons and case studies to International Waters program; ü (P) EAS Congress organized, and providing a venue for monitoring, reporting and evaluating progress in SDS-SEA implementation ü (P) PRF knowledge-sharing conducted, through training programs, investment projects, and networking arrangements ü (P) PRF and country representatives participate in biennial GEF IW Conference, providing regional experience through case studies and good practices in sustainable development and coastal and ocean governance.	ü Agreement with GEF IW: Learn Network ü EAS Congress proceedings ü PRF Secretariat report to EAS Partnership Council ü Mid-term and Terminal Evaluation reports ü GEF Biennial Conference proceedings	Assumptions: ü PEMSEA has already established a working relationship with IW: Learn, and can build upon this partnership. ü The EAS Congress is well recognized as a forum for sharing information and knowledge ü The PRF is staffed with competent individuals with capacity and experience in training and technical services. Risk: Low
Output E.5: Community based projects, including those addressing supplementary livelihood opportunities, developed and implemented at ICM sites throughout the region in partnership with GEF/UNDP Small Grants Programme and other community-based donor programs
E.5.1 Partnerships/working arrangements established with donor-supported programs for SDS-SEA implementation	ü (P) Agreements signed with GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) and other community-based donor programs mobilizing community groups/sectors in sustainable livelihood activities in support of sustainable coastal resource management	ü MOAs/MOUs or similar agreements between SGP, other donor programs and PEMSEA	Assumptions: ü One of the important aspects of ICM programs is the engagement of all concerned sectors in managing coastal and marine areas. Such an approach facilitates awareness and interaction between local governments and NGOs, CBOs and POs in the development and implementation of coastal strategies. ü International agencies and donors will benefit from the coastal strategies, working arrangements and partnerships that are in place at PEMSEA sites. Risk: Low ü Representation and recognition of the role of women, youth, indigenous people and other groups is not considered an important issue in some countries. However, project implementation will focus on countries where the political climate is conducive to community participation.
E.5.2 Projects proposals facilitated, aimed at mobilizing community groups in the implementation of coastal strategies and actions plans.	ü (SR) At least 6 site-specific and community level collaborative projects developed and implemented to strengthen community participation in decision-making ü (SR) Increased participation among women, youth, indigenous people and marginalized groups in project activities as a result of an increased knowledge, skills and appreciation of the projects.	ü Project applications ü Project reports ü Annual reports of SGP	Assumptions: ü Coastal strategies already identify social, economic and environmental issues/problems in the local coastal and watershed areas at PEMSEA sites; ü NGOs/CBOs and POs are recognized by local governments as partners in coastal strategy implementation. Risk: Low ü Local governments/ICM offices will assist NGOs and POs with the development of project proposals
E.5.3 Capacity building activities for community groups implementing projects in support of coastal strategies	ü (SR) Increased access to training and capacity building within communities at PEMSEA sites ü (SR) Increased funding allocation and support for project proposals by women, youth, IPs and other marginalized sectors.	ü Training workshop reports ü Case studies ü Annual reports of SGP	Assumptions: ü Local ICM offices have the capacity to train/assist NGOs and COs in project development and implementation. ü PRF will provide guidelines and training of trainers. Risk: Low
E.5.4 National and regional forums for NGO/community groups organized	ü (P) EAS Congress and PEMSEA website provide NGOs and CBOs with ready access to good practices and knowledge on community-based resource management and alternative livelihood programs.	ü EAS Congress proceedings ü PEMSEA website ü NGO and CBO reports/surveys	Assumptions: ü Community-based resource management will be a feature workshop of the EAS Congress. ü Donors and international agencies will support the attendance of project personnel (i.e. CBO and PO project implementation team members) to participate in the EAS Congress. Risk: Low
Output E.6: A self-sustaining regional network of local governments in place, operating and committed to achieving tangible improvements in the sustainable use and development of marine and coastal areas through ICM practices
E.6.1 Capacity enhancing seminars and workshops conducted by PNLG	ü (P) Senior local government officials participating in seminars and workshops ü (SR) 100% increase in the number of local governments participating in PNLG and committed to implementing ICM programs	ü PNLG membership list ü Seminar and workshop reports	Assumptions: ü Local governments are willing to sign the PNLG Charter during the EAS Congress 2006, thereby establishing the PNLG. ü Local governments are willing to sponsor their own participation at seminars and workshops. Risk: Low ü Local governments participated in the drafting of the PNLG Charter. ü Local governments have been cost-sharing meetings and workshops during the ongoing PEMSEA project.
E.6.2 PNLG Secretariat hosted Xiamen Municipal Government	ü (P) PEMSEA Network of Local Governments established and hosted by the Xiamen, with the members conducting annual meetings.	ü MOA/MOU between Xiamen Municipal Government and PEMSEA ü PNLG meeting reports	Assumption: ü Xiamen Municipal Government will volunteer to serve as host for the PNLG Secretariat, and provide resources for its operation. Risk: Low
E.6.3 Regular “World Oceans Week” organized by Xiamen Municipal Government	ü (P) Local government executives from around the world attended World Oceans Week event and shared knowledge and lessons regarding development and management of urban coastal areas.	ü Oceans Week report ü Xiamen Municipal Government budget allocation for Oceans Week	Assumption: ü Xiamen Municipal Government, in collaboration with PEMSEA and UNDP, will organize and co-sponsor the Oceans Week. Risk: Low
COMPONENT F: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT AND FINANCING IN ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND SERVICES
Outcome 6: Public and private sector cooperation achieving environmental sustainability through the mobilization of investments in pollution reduction facilities and services.
Output F.1: Innovative national investment and financing policies and programs for public and private sector investment in pollution reduction facilities
F.1.1 In conjunction with ICM scaling up initiatives (Component C) and river basin and coastal area management projects (Component D), package, promote and facilitate the adoption and implementation of policy reforms, innovative economic incentives, alternative revenue generating schemes, and appropriate institutional arrangements.	ü (P) Good policies and practices in financing and investment in pollution reduction facilities and services packaged and promoted for adoption among ICM sites and pollution hotspots	ü Policy briefs and case studies ü PEMSEA portal and IW Learn dissemination network	Assumptions: ü There is an unmet demand for environmental infrastructure projects in the region; ü The private sector represents a virtually untapped resource with respect to pollution reduction investment in the region; ü Governments are interested and willing to engage the private sector as investors in sewerage, sanitation and waste management projects, using traditional and innovative financing mechanisms. Risks: Low to Medium ü Governments may unwilling to implement policy reforms to facilitate involvement of the private sector. To address this risk, the project will focus on governments (national and sub-national) that have already expressed/indicated a willingness to engage the private sector as partners in the development and implementation of pollution reduction facilities and services, and/or have similar experience in other sectors. ü The private sector may not be interested in working with the EAS Partnership Council and participating countries on this issue. However, it is evident that there is significant investment opportunity in pollution reduction among countries across the region. In many countries there are political, financial and regulatory risks that the private sector is unable to address without the support of national governments. The proposed project provides a window for the private sector to address these risks with governments across the region, while maintaining transparency and integrity of process.
F.1.2 Formulate and demonstrate methodologies for preparing integrated river basin-coastal area management investment plans focused on pollution reduction, for adoption and use by local governments, the private sector, financial institutions and other concerned stakeholders, particularly with respect to the replication and scaling up of innovative technologies and practices (Component G).	ü (P) Policy reforms developed, adopted and implemented at ICM sites ü (SR) Increased investment in pollution reduction facilities and services among ICM sites and pollution hotspots ü (SR) Increased jobs/formal employment opportunities created in the environmental industry sector	ü Policies/legislation/ ordinances ü Employment statistics/surveys ü Case study/survey of ICM scaling up programs ü Case study/survey of pollution hotspot projects ü State of Coasts reports
F.1.3 Establish a one-stop PPP Support Service for local governments, the private sector, financial institutions, and other interested stakeholders, in collaboration with Strategic Partners, to promote and facilitate increased private sector participation in investment projects for pollution reduction at ICM sites and in river basin and coastal area management programs.	ü (P) One-stop public-private partnership support service for local governments and the private sector established and operating within the PRF.	ü PRF business plan ü Requests for PPP services received from governments, financial institutions and private sector
COMPONENT G: STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS
Outcome 7: A Strategic Partnership for the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia, functioning as a mechanism for GEF, the World Bank, the UNDP, and other international and regional partners to incorporate and coordinate their strategic action plans, programs and projects under the framework of the SDS-SEA, thus promoting greater sustainability and political commitment to the effort.
Output G.1: A functional Strategic Partnership arrangement facilitating enhanced communication, knowledge sharing, scaling up and replication of innovative technologies and practices in pollution reduction across the LMEs of East Asia.
G.1.1 Operationalize a Strategic Partnership Technical Team (SPTT) to coordinate the development, implementation, evaluation and promotion of the collaborative activities and outputs of the Strategic Partnership.	ü (P) Agreement signed between UNDP, World Bank and the PRF regarding Strategic Partnership arrangement to manage and implement the Project Preparation Revolving Fund	ü MOA or similar agreement ü SPTT meeting proceedings ü Mid-term stocktaking meeting report ü External evaluation report	Assumptions: ü Countries support the Strategic Partnership approach as a means of enhancing cooperation and synergy among projects; ü Major international players and regional programs are willing to forge a Strategic Partnership, as a means to improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness of available resources. Risks: Medium ü Countries, international agencies and organizations, private sector and NGOs are not willing to collaborate in all activities and/or prefer bilateral cooperative approaches. To address this risk, national and regional consultations will be conducted during the project to gather input and define the framework of the Strategic Partnership, relative to the needs and benefits of the countries, international agencies and regional programs. ü The Strategic Partnership will start with World Bank and UNDP, as a prototype arrangement. As experience and benefits are acquired, the PRF will be responsible for evaluating and communicating the results/good practices. ü By the end of the project, a series of stocktaking meetings and promotional events are expected to generate demand and interest for a long-term partnership arrangement.
G.1.2 Organize and implement a communication/ coordination program for the Strategic Partnership including a website, quarterly reviews/newsletters, regional conferences/workshops, etc. to review the progress and achievements of projects and sub-projects, and to promote the replication of good practices across the region and to other regions.	ü (P) Communication plan developed/implemented among Partners	ü Strategic Partnership website ü EAS Congress proceedings ü National and regional workshop proceedings
G.1.3 Monitor the progress of the Strategic Partnership through agreed indicators for the Partnership, as well as sub-project specific indicators for each sub-project undertaken by the Strategic Partnership.	ü (P) M&E program conducted by PRF, in collaboration with World Bank, using agreed environmental and socio-economic indicators ü (SR) Project Preparation Revolving Fund developed and implemented in one country ü (ESSI): Increase in the proportion of population with access to improved sanitation and sewerage systems, with corresponding reductions in risk to incidence of water borne disease.	ü M&E report to EAS Partnership Council ü State of Coasts report ü Agreement with one country ü Agreements with private sector, donors, and financial institutions
G.1.4 Package and disseminate multi-media materials regarding the Strategic Partnership and the related sub-projects to governments and stakeholders, the EAS Partnership Council, the EAS Congress, the Ministerial Forum, and other relevant regional and international forums.	ü (P) Five (5) good practices and case studies prepared by SPTT and disseminated ü (P) Workshops and seminars held at the national (5) and regional levels promoting replication of good practices ü (P) IT network for promoting replication opportunities set up ü (P) Virtual market place for sites and partners wishing to replicate good practices established	ü Case studies ü Good practices ü EAS Congress proceedings ü Strategic Partnership website ü IW Learn network
G.1.5 Develop linkages and strategic partnership arrangements with regional and international organizations and institutions, and donors, as well as other regional GEF IW programs, such as the South China Sea, Yellow Sea, Sulu-Sulawesi Seas and the Arafura and Timor Seas, to transfer knowledge, replicate good practices and facilitate increased investments in pollution reduction across the region.	ü (P) Strategic Partnership arrangements signed with two new partners	ü MOAs or similar agreements
COMPONENT H: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCES
Outcome 8: Multinational and national corporations integrating social responsibility into their organizational strategies, programs and practices, and facilitating the replication and scaling up of capacities in sustainable development of marine and coastal resources among local governments and communities of the region.
Output H.1: Partnership arrangements established and implemented between multinational and national corporations, industry, local governments and communities for sustainable development of marine and coastal resources.
H.1.1 Develop multi-media materials and conduct seminars/forums for CEOs and senior managers of corporations (public and private), private industry and local and national government leaders, in order to strengthen awareness and understanding of environmental sustainability, its linkages to economic and social development, and the use of ICM as an effective tool for governance of coastal and marine resources.	ü (P) CEOs attend seminars/forums to learn about corporate experience in ICM program development and implementation	ü Reports on CEO forums ü APR/PIR	ü The corporate sector is concerned about its role and responsibility in the community, and is looking for opportunities to demonstrate its corporate social responsibility and impacts, locally, nationally and internationally. ü Governments (national and local) are willing and interested to partner with national and multinational corporations, industry and private sector to strengthen governance of coastal and marine resources. Risks: Medium ü There is a need to build trust and working relatinships between the two sectors. PEMSEA has previous experience in this area.
H.1.2 Facilitate the development and implementation of partnership arrangements between corporations/industry and local governments and communities and, within the context of ICM scaling up programs, aligning private sector organizational goals for social responsibility with resource commitments and investments in support of social, economic and environmental goals and benefits of the communities.	ü (SR) At least 50 companies and firms sign agreements and implement ICM or environmental projects with local government	ü Signed Agreements ü APR/PIR ü Technical reports/case studies of partnership arrangements
H.1.3 Link up with a “corporate champion for sustainable development” to develop and implement a demonstration project on corporate social responsibility in strategic issues/areas of concern to local governments (e.g., water use/conservation; disaster management; sustainable livelihoods; improved access to/usage of IT in knowledge sharing and engaging disadvantaged sectors of communities in coastal governance; etc.).	ü (P) Agreement with corporate champion ü (SR) Demonstration project implemented in collaboration with local government and other partners	ü Signed Agreement ü Technical report/case study ü APR/PIR
Output H.2: Corporate responsibility practices evaluated and recognized as a special relevance to achieving social, environmental and economic benefits in coastal communities.
H.2.1 Modify and adopt monitoring and evaluation procedures (e.g., ISO 26000), including social, economic and environmental indicators, as appropriate, to assess corporate policy, commitment and actions in aid of sustainable development of coastal communities and their natural resources based on PEMSEA’s experience in ICM Code and PSHEMS Code and recognition system.	ü (P) Methodology developed ü (P) Regional workshop conducted, consensus achieved	ü Methodology published ü Workshop proceedings	ü Corporate sector wants to be recognized for their social responsibility; ü The development of corporate responsibility charters, principles and other instruments, and these endorsement of these by a large number of companies and firms across the region verifies this assumption. Risk: Low ü PEMSEA has previous experience in developing, demonstrating and implementing recognition systems (PSHEM Code). ü This experience will be utilized in developing and implementing the corporate social responsibility recognition system.
H.2.2 Field-test the monitoring and evaluation procedures in collaboration with existing corporate partners who are working with local government units and stakeholders at ICM sites.	ü (P) Evaluation conducted in collaboration wit corporate sector, at an existing project site	ü Evaluation report ü Refined methodology
H.2.3 Implement a corporate responsibility recognition system, in collaboration with national governments, private sector, donors, and other concerned stakeholders, to promote and encourage private sector participation, resource commitments and investments in support of social, economic and environmental goals and benefits of coastal communities.	ü (P) Regional workshop/forum conducted, consensus achieved on recognition system ü (P) Recognition system tested/demonstrated at selected sites	ü Regional workshop proceedings ü Demonstration report

Annex B: Responses to Project Reviews (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)

Major recommendations in the GEF Secretariat Review Sheet are indicated in the table below, along with an explanation of how each issue is addressed in the Executive Summary and/or Project Document.

GEF Secretariat Recommendation	Project Proposal
*March 2007 – Recommendations at Work Program Inclusion*
Ø Provide a section showing how the proposal responds to the recommendations made at the time of PDF-B approval	Annex D of the Executive Summary (see below) lists the recommendations of the GEF Sec made during the PDF-B approval, and how the proposal has responded.
Ø Provide in the Executive Summary a section describing the co-financing sources (type and source)	Section 4, Financing, page 14 of the Executive Summary identifies the sources, classification and type of co-financing.
Ø Provide in the Executive Summary a detailed budget, by activity and sub-component, in addition to the one by type of expenditure presented in the ProDoc	Annex C of the Executive Summary contains a detailed project budget, by activity and subcomponent, for each year of the three year project.
Ø Specify the resources allocated for all the activities related to replication, as described at pages 10, 11, 12 of the Executive Summary	Table 1, page 12 of the Executive Summary provides the indicative budget for resources related to the replication aspects of the project, exclusive of the project team staff time.
Ø Management budget. The total GEF exceeds the 10% standard. It includes $320K for travels and office facilities. These costs should be reduced and/or covered through co-financing, or well justified in the text.	The Project Management Budget has been revised (page 18, Executive Summary). The Government of the Philippines provided co-financing, namely $554,000 for office facilities. Travel costs were reduced to $59,200 for three years. Office supplies, equipment maintenance (i.e., equipment owned by the UNDP from the previous PEMSEA project) and office security (i.e., a UN requirement) are $159,800. A project management budget of $930,258, or 8.5% of the $10,876,336 GEF allocation, has been confirmed.
Ø Provide the Exec. Summary explanatory text referring to the Revolving Fund alluded to in the Logframe (G.1.3)	An explanation of the purpose and objective of the project preparation revolving fund has been provided in the Executive Summary, Sustainability (including Financial Sustainability), page 9. It may be noted that the project preparation revolving fund is under development. A project preparation grant has been approved by GEF, with World Bank as the project manager.
Ø Ensure that the project will have a website according to IW LEARN criteria, and that it will participate in IW LEARN initiatives, including biennial conferences.	Component G of the Project Document, Indicators of Success (page 46), lists these two items as required outputs of the project.
*May 2005 – Recommendations at PDF-B Approval*
*Project Designation and Conformity:*
Ø essential for the project to allocate sufficient resources to the coordination of the Strategic Partnership	Component G of the project proposal addresses the issue of Strategic Partnership coordination and replication of the innovative policies and good practices demonstrated under the World Bank/GEF Investment Fund. The budgetary allocation to Component G is $715,740.
Ø pursue the development of a component that would strengthen the participation of the corporate sector and business community in the demonstration projects at the community level.	Component H of the project proposal entails the development of partnership arrangements between the corporate sector, business community, industry and local enterprises and national and local governments for ICM scaling up projects in coastal communities. The target is to engage at least 50 companies in environmental projects with local governments. In addition, a partnership will be pursued with a multinational corporate champion to demonstrate corporate social responsibility, thereby leveraging other corporate sector involvement in sustainable development of coastal communities in the region and elsewhere.
*Project Design:*
Ø confirmation of project length	The project is 3 years duration.
Ø preparation of project indicators	The Project Logical Framework includes a list of project indicators, developed and agreed to by the participating countries during project preparation stage (Annex B, Executive Summary). In addition to the identified indicators, Components A, C, and G of the project will develop sub-project indicators covering State of Coast reporting, ICM projects, and sub-projects of the Strategic Partnership. These indicators will be used in the State of Coast reporting system, as well as for evaluating the success/impacts of replication and scaling up activities.
*Replicability:*
Ø interact with the World Bank, the Mediterranean, and the Danube-Black Sea projects with regard to the replication strategy	A number of interactions were facilitated during the PDF-B stage, which resulted in the Replication Strategy (Annex 7, Project Document). In addition to internet communications and individual meetings, the project was able to participate in a the GEF-sponsored conference in Moldova, entitled Nutrient Pollution Control in the Danube-Black Sea Basin, in October 2006. This was a very helpful experience, for it allowed interaction between the implementers in the Danube-Black Sea Basin and the planners in the East Asian Seas region. Also, as part of the EAS Congress 2006, in Haikou, China, the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and PEMSEA organized a series of three workshops concerning financing of pollution reduction initiatives, including the development and replication of different models of financing. All of these inputs contributed substantially to the project design.
Ø Commitment for a project website consistent with IW LEARN Guidelines	These points have been included in Component G, Indicators of Success, of the Project Document.
Ø Funding at least one country to attend the GEF International Waters Portfolio Conference in 2009, along with CTA
Ø Regional conference, annual workshops and mid-term stocktaking meeting
Ø Develop linkages with Yellow Sea and South China Sea projects for replication of good practices	This is included under activity G.1.5 of the Project Document.
*Stakeholder Involvement:*
Ø Stakeholder involvement plan	A plan has been developed and is in Annex 6 of the Project Document.
Ø $1.5 million UNDP SGP initiative to complement the work of PEMSEA in communities in the implementation of the SDS-SEA	A Joint Communiqué has been signed with the UNDP SGP to jointly develop community-based projects in support of SDS-SEA, and a $1 million budget has been earmarked.
*Monitoring and Evaluation:*
Ø An M&E plan	An M&E plan has been developed, and may be found on pages 62-69 of the Project Document.
Ø Process and stress reduction indicators established for each country	Table 2, page 67, of the Project Document specifies indicative indicators to be utilized for the purpose of annual monitoring and reporting of country progress throughout the implementation of the project.
Ø Inclusion of catalytic impact indicators	The only catalytic impact indicator cited in Table 2, at this time, is the estimated investment that will be leveraged through the WB/GEF Investment Fund for pollution reduction ($350-$500 million). Other catalytic impact indicators will be formulated as part of Components C, D, F, G and H, during project implementation.
Institutional Coordination and Support:
Ø Clarification of language concerning the Strategic Partnership	The definition of the Strategic Partnership has been refined, and is included on pages 2 to 4 of the Project Document.

GEF Council Comments on the GEF/UNDP Project Document Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia

GEF Council Comments	Response
France: This regional project covers both a huge area and a very broad set of activities and outcomes in a 3 year duration period. Although absolutely justified in principle, this project raised some feasibility concerns already identified in the Project risks table (p3 and 4). The answers provided in terms of risk mitigation are not really convincing for some reasons: - “Capacity to implement the SDS-SEA varies from country to country”: this issue is linked with the real “international aid absorption capacity” of a wide range of governments with wide differences of competences and capacities. In this respect, to propose more frameworks or trainings is not the most adapted answer if the concepts, the methods and the way to use them in day to day management are not detailed. - “available time and resources to achieve project’s output and outcome”: in the project, the key factor presented is only the government commitment and participation. However, it will take time to build up real inter-ministerial and inter-agency participatory processes (necessary for a good implementation) on such a transversal and multi-stakeholders issues (out of the regional and multi-governmental coordination issue). The project is not clear enough on the calendar.	The relevant elements of the project risks/mitigation table will be strengthened in the Project Document, in accordance with the following: Core operational activities of the project are focused on the principles, policies, strategies and processes associated with integrated coastal management (ICM), which is a framework and process that has been developed, demonstrated and verified among countries of the region (with GEF support) over the past 12 years. Six of the 8 GEF-eligible countries have national ICM demonstration sites, which will serve as learning centers for replicating and scaling up good ICM practices within their respective countries and across the region, as part of national ICM scaling up initiatives. Training and capacity development initiatives under the project are designed to build up the necessary technical and management skills, networks and partnership arrangements that will facilitate and accelerate ICM implementation. Lao PDR and Timor Leste are new Partners of PEMSEA, and therefore activities in these two countries will concentrate on capacity development and the start up and operation of their “national demonstration” projects. The challenges associated with policy and institutional reforms are well-recognized by the PEMSEA participating countries. The Project Logical Framework (Annex B, Executive Summary) specifies that activities associated with national policy, legislative and institutional reforms will be undertaken in 5 countries over the 3-year project. The 5 countries have indicated their willingness and interest to implement these changes, and in some cases, have already commenced the process. Similar efforts in other countries will be the focus of the 2010-2013 phase of the project. This phased approach of the project enables learning and transfer of good practices from the first phase to the second phase, and to the remaining countries.
In the project, the lack of time is compensated by an important use of international consulting services (see table p15 and annexes C and H), even if it is not necessarily the best way to build up national capacities. Why not implementing a “Learning by doing” method ? It probably needs a longer timeframe but should provide more efficient and appropriated results. The document is not clear on this point.	The project is, in fact, employing a “learning by doing” approach, using ICM as the guiding framework and methodology. National and regional task forces, comprised of skilled and experienced professionals from the region, will be the “core technical support team” for the project, ensuring that the intellectual resources of countries, and the region as a whole, are utilized and strengthened, and thereby ensuring sustainability beyond the project. Output E.1, Project Logical Framework (p. 41) delineates the outputs and indicators associated with the NTF/RTF networks. Annex H has been updated, providing TOR for the international consultants that will serve as part of the PRF Technical Services. In order to build long-term capacity in ICM in the region, training and coaching of national and regional staff have been identified as important components of the TORs.
The answers to sustainability issues (p8 and 9) could be more detailed, in particular : what are the recurrent costs to maintain a living international SDS-SEA information sharing, negotiations and conflict resolution mechanism among the participatory countries?	These issues are part and parcel of the Component A of the project, with the objective establishing a functional, long-term and sustainable regional mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation, as detailed in the Project Document. To this end, countries are already making commitments in support of such a mechanism. China, Japan and RO Korea have signed Cost-Sharing Agreements (CSAs) committing more than US$1.3 million in cash over the next three years to support the establishment and operation of the PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF) Secretariat Services. The PRF will be the operating arm of the regional mechanism. In addition to providing Secretariat support to the EAS Partnership Council, over the next three years the PRF is responsible for identifying legal, administrative, financial and operational options for a sustainable regional mechanism, for review and evaluation by the countries. A decision will be made by the participating countries on the long-term option that best suits their objectives, needs and capacities. Furthermore, at the 1^st EAS Partnership Council meeting held in July 2007, the intergovernmental and multisectoral Council endorsed a plan to proceed with the establishment of a legal personality for PEMSEA, including the organization and start up of a PEMSEA Partnership Fund, to serve as a financing mechanism to support the PRF operation beyond GEF’s exit as a major sponsor of the SDS-SEA implementation. These two initiatives, (i.e., the CSA commitments and the endorsement by Council to proceed with the establishment of a self-sustaining regional mechanism with a legal identity), provide ample evidence of the seriousness of the countries and their partners to maintain a living SDS-SEA implementation mechanism.
The overall feasibility of this proposed regional project could be much precise.	The EAS Partnership Council is a new and innovative regional mechanism, which has been forged on the basis of trust and cooperation among countries and stakeholders over the past 12 years. The SDS-SEA, as adopted by participating countries, is a process-oriented strategy, meaning that the methodologies for realizing the shared vision of sustainable development of the regional sea are based on tried and proven processes that have worked for countries in this region. It is recognized that several countries are already successfully collaborating on TDA/SAP development in some of the LMEs in East Asia with GEF support. This fact strengthens the feasibility of the SDS-SEA and its implementing mechanism as a foundation for cooperation among countries and stakeholders, a framework for developing more detailed SAPs at the LME and country levels, and as a guide for managing subregional sea areas that do not have TDAs or SAPs in place. Finally, the Project Document (i.e., Project Logical framework, Annex 3) provides a framework and procedures for achieving the agreed outputs. It does not attempt to prescribe activities that will be undertaken at each site, but rather provides the means for “learning and adapting” the ICM process to meet the needs and capacities of participating countries and local communities. Together, these three elements provide confidence on the feasibility of the regional project, and its eventual success.
Germany: There might be potential for co-operations or knowledge-transfer between UNDP and GTZ when it comes to activities in the Mekong-region. Main objective of the GTZ project "Sustainable Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin" (which will be carried out until 2012) is to improve the planning and coordination of sustainable water resource management in the upper catchment areas of the Lower Mekong Basin. The improvement of the institutional framework conditions for sustainable management of upstream watersheds forms the central focus of the project work. The concept of watershed management is being translated into a decentralized and participative management process. Advisory services focus on the introduction of integrated management approaches through institutional development and strengthening of the organizations involved. Essential areas of intervention are: Policy analysis and advice, Information and Knowledge Management and Capacity Development.	The Project Document (Component D) identified the Mekong River as a priority area for the promotion and expansion of twinning arrangements in support of transfer of knowledge, experience and good practices from river basin and coastal area management projects and programs from within (South-South) and outside (North-South) the region. The twinning actions of the project are designed to assist participating countries with the development and implementation of effective integrated management approaches to river basin and coastal area management, through the experiences and support of others who have gone through similar processes. The information provided on the specific GTZ activities in the Mekong River is appreciated, and initial contact has been made with the GTZ focal point in the Mekong River Commission to explore a collaborative working arrangement, as attached to this review (Attachment 1). The project will be following up with the GTZ contact to identify areas of collaboration and cooperation.
Japan: PEMSEA, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Sea of East Asia, which is implemented by UNDP from 2007, is a framework for regional cooperation on sustainable development, enabling the sustainable use and management of coastal and marine resources of the Seas of East Asia. The objective of this project is to facilitate implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA), adopted in 2003, which recognizes the current state of the deteriorated marine environment, relevant programs and instruments, as well as implementation approaches, in order to achieve the sustainable development of the Seas of Asia. Japan is supporting the SDS-SEA under PEMSEA, and this project as well. Switzerland:	Japan’s support and cooperation throughout the development and implementation of the SDS-SEA project are greatly appreciated.
We feel that the country drivenness in large regional or global undertakings is critical to develop enough momentum for successful closures. The GEF leverage ratios achieved in the (project is) rather modest with a value of 3.1 in each Project. When comparing the total in-cash co-financing to the GEF financing, the respective leverage ratios for the two Projects are 0.5 and 0.1. Given the vast envisaged outcomes, these ratios are not indicative of strong country drivenness for the two Projects.	The project represents the regional component of a two-project “Strategic Partnership” package that has been endorsed by countries and submitted to GEF Council for approval. In essence, the UNDP component catalyzes the necessary policy and institutional reforms, partnership arrangements, awareness and capacities to promote, leverage and replicate on-the-ground changes and investments by the public and private sectors. The World Bank component (Partnership Investment Fund) is focused on the “hardware” aspects, putting in place innovative technologies and systems to reduce pollution. The expected commitment from countries in terms of leveraged investments in pollution reduction is $850 million to $1.5 billion. Thus, the two-project package is actually leveraging in-kind and in-cash investments from countries ranging from 10:1 to 16:1, 96% of which is in-cash. This is significantly higher than other projects and clearly demonstrates country drivenness in this specific financial context.
In terms of sustainability, we feel that the Projects’ expected outcomes have grown beyond their ability to deliver tangible results on a scale that will sufficiently generate more buy-in, counterpart and action during and after the Projects' duration.	The project is recognized as challenging. One of the greatest challenges is the task of establishing a self-sustaining regional mechanism to implementing the SDS-SEA beyond the project. However, due recognition must be given to the progress that has been achieved by the participating countries in recent years, including the adoption of the SDS-SEA as a common framework for cooperation and collaboration for the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources of the region, as well as the establishment of a regional implementing mechanism, founded on partnership principles, to oversee and guide the implementation of the SDS-SEA. Countries have already demonstrated their buy-in and commitment to sustainability by establishing a country-financed PRF Secretariat Services in support of the regional mechanism. Specifically, China, Japan and RO Korea have already committed more than US$ 1.3 million in cash over the next three years to support the PRF operation. Also, other countries have already taken steps to revise/ develop policy, institutional and legal arrangements to strengthen national marine programs (see Institutional and Sectoral Context, Project Document). Over the next 3 years, the GEF support is designed to establish a “core” of national policies, strategies and legislation, institutional arrangements, Strategic Partnership commitments, regional intellectual capital, capacity development packages, and sustainable financing mechanisms that will leverage on-the-ground changes. This core capacity, and the derived good practices and experiences, will then be utilized to help other countries achieve their desired targets in the second and third stages of PEMSEA’s 10-year transformation (see Annex 1, Project Document).
We are also concerned that the Projects will not have the resources for adequate stakeholder involvement since national and local governments as well as private institutions will need to play major roles for the envisaged outcomes.	From January 2006 to June 2007, 40 national, sub-national and regional forums, workshops and congresses were organized and conducted as part of the project preparation process, which was co-funded by GEF. Two thousand, one hundred and sixty-seven (2,167) stakeholders from national and local governments, international and local NGOs, private sector, academic institutions, international and regional organizations, the media and the youth participated in the consultations. Furthermore, an equivalent number of informal consultations, presentations and dialogues were held among existing and potential State and non-State partners and collaborators from within and outside the region concerning the project. This has resulted in 16 non-State Partners signing letters of cooperation (LOC) or similar agreements with PEMSEA in support of the implementation of the SDS-SEA project. The sum of this stakeholder participation has been articulated in the Stakeholder Involvement Plan, which may be found in Annex 6 of the Project Document. The plan identifies the roles of partners and collaborators in each aspect of the SDS-SEA implementation, including activities at the national, sub-national, regional and sub-regional levels. GEF funds are being allocated to activities that: a) strengthen stakeholder capacity to implement the agreed strategies and action plans; b) leverage resource commitments and investments from the public and private sectors for action plan implementation and establishment of improved environmental facilities and services; and c) build multi-sectoral networks, partnerships and knowledge-sharing mechanisms to tackle common objectives. National and local governments will be contributing their own resources, within their respective capacities, in support of project activities in their respective countries. These activities have been identified in the Project Logical Framework, Annex B, and are part of the US$27.59 million in co-financing support from governments. It is PEMSEA’s experience that non-State stakeholders also provide resources in accordance wit their obligations as defined in LOCs or similar agreements, through joint or collaborative activities and events. Although these funds do not pass directly to the project, the resources contribute to the goals of the project, and to the partnership effort for SDS-SEA implementation. (For example, the LOC with City University of Hong Kong has resulted in a commitment of US$ 5.78 million from the university to implement a technology development and transfer program among participating countries focused on innovative pollution reduction technologies and marine water quality monitoring.) In fact, what the project is designed to do is to build an integrated management and partnership arrangement among the major stakeholders and across the concerned sectors (public and private), whereby existing efforts and resource commitments are realigned or strengthened regarding the ways and means that they contribute to the common vision, mission and targets of the SDS-SEA, and are recognized accordingly. Initially, the plan is to focus on local government units and their partners implementing ICM programs and, over time, to build upon and scale up the experience to national and sub-regional levels.
We recognise the importance of the targeted ecosystems, their transboundary character, and the relevance of the project objectives. We however feel that (the project) proposal(s) would need a re-balancing between the envisaged outcomes and the Project activities. To this end, we propose that (a) a greater degree of detail is sought in the description of the hands-on practical implementation of the Projects, in close cooperation with the stakeholders or certain stakeholders; and	Details on the project activities and outcomes may be found in the Project Document, specifically from pages 24 to 49 in the body of the document describing the actions, outputs and indicators of success for each of the 8 project components. In addition, Annex 1 (PEMSEA’s 10-year transformation program) and Annex 3 (Project Logical Framework) provide the linkages between the Outcomes, Outputs, and individual actions that will be taken during the project, as well as the various indicators of that will be employed to monitor and measure progress and impacts. The concept for this project was first discussed among countries in August 2003, followed by a series of national and regional consultations, workshops and meetings spanning the 3-year and 9 month timeframe to June 2007, when the project was presented to GEF Council. Core operational activities of the project are focused on the principles, policies, strategies and processes associated with integrated coastal management (ICM), which is a framework and process that has been developed, demonstrated and verified among countries of the region (with GEF support) over the past 12 years. Six of the 8 GEF-eligible countries have national ICM demonstration sites, which will serve as learning centers for replicating and scaling up good ICM practices within their respective countries and across the region, as part of national ICM scaling up initiatives. In addition, another 16 local governments in the region have initiated ICM projects utilizing their own funding sources to implement the PEMSEA ICM framework and process. PEMSEA only provides training and technical advice to these 16 sites. An extensive stakeholder involvement plan has been developed as a consequence of the various consultations, as noted previously, which may be viewed in Annex 6 of the Project Document. The integrated management framework and methodology is already widely accepted and adopted as a strategy for achieving sustainable development of marine and coastal resources by the participating countries, local governments and their partners in the region. For details on the methodology, interested parties may further refer to the PEMSEA publication, The Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management, 2006, by Chua Thia-Eng, a 400-page review and analysis of ICM as practiced in the region. This methodology provides the common framework and processes for scaling up integrated management of coastal and marine resources among countries for SDS-SEA implementation.
(b) increased in-cash co-financing commitments are received from the stakeholders or certain stakeholders, based on the refined description of the implementation activities.	This matter was addressed in response to the initial statement in the review.
We suggest that the GEF makes its approval of these two Project proposals subject to satisfactory additional information on these issues.	We hope that we have fully and satisfactorily addressed the issues raised in this review.

Attachment 1: Correspondence with GTZ Contact, Mekong River

From: Huming Yu
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:30 PM
To: Cornelis van Tuyll
Cc: Stephen Adrian Ross; Belyn Rafael
Subject: RE: Developing partnership between PEMSEA and MR-GTZ

Dear Dr. Tuyll,

Many thanks for your quick response.

We are now working with WRCCS to prepare a community based project in Xedon River Basin in Laos. In the coming months, we hope to take the opportunities of this project to visit you in the MRC and discuss some possible collaborative arrangements. Prior to this proposed meeting in the MRC, we will review the activities of both projects and identify potential areas of collaboration. We may contact you again for further information. Please also let us know if you need more information on PEMSEA. Best regards.

From: Cornelis van Tuyll [mailto:tuyll@mrcmekong.org]
Sent: 10 July 2007 16:48
To: Huming Yu
Cc: Thia-Eng Chua; Stephen Adrian Ross; Elsie Merina; Belyn Rafael; 'Timo Menniken'; 'Siligato Simonetta'
Subject: RE: Developing partnership between PEMSEA and MR-GTZ

Dear Mr. Huming Yu,

I am thankful for your mail. Indeed we are working intensively on all aspects of Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin with special interest in Policies, Information and Knowledge Management and Capacity Development in general. We are very interested in partnering on these issues.

So far we have implemented a Policy Analysis in all four MRC countries, are in the process of establishing Watershed Committees in pilot watersheds in these countries, prepared the first draft of a Watershed Management Information Resource KIT (ca. 1000 pages) and are in the process of preparing and implementing 7 different Capacity Building Packages (CB 1 is a consultative meeting for decision –makers; CB 2 is a training package for middle managers; CB 3 is an awareness package for local/community leaders including learning centres; CB 4 is a training package for planners on province and district level; CB 5 is a package for trainer of trainers; CB 6 is a refreshment package).

We believe strongly that there are a number of similarities between methodologies and contents of Coastal Zone Management and Watershed Management.

What do you propose as next steps?

From: Huming Yu [mailto:humingyu@pemsea.org]
Sent: Tuesday 10 July 2007 12:40
To: tuyll@mrcmekong.org
Cc: chuate@pemsea.org; Stephen Adrian Ross; Elsie Merina; Belyn Rafael
Subject: Developing partnership between PEMSEA and MR-GTZ

Dear Dr. Cornelis van Tuyll,

This is in reference to Comments by Germany on the Work Program of June 2007 (GEF/C.31/8) made by Dr. Marita Steinke, GEF Council Member, Head of Environment Division, BMZ (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development), addressed to Ms. Monique Barbut, Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson, Global Environment Facility, dated 02 July 2007.

In Item 3 Individual Project Proposals in the above mentioned Comments, Regional Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA), UNDP, is cited as having a potential for cooperation or knowledge-transfer with GTZ project Sustainable Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin. We fully share this comment and look forward to further interaction and partnership between the two projects.

Over the years, PEMSEA has devoted a special effort to enhance capacity of local governments and communities in the integrated management of coastal lands and waters, as well as catchment areas impacting marine environment, in various countries of the region, including Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. PEMSEA activities in these countries focused on community based actions in the adoption of “good practices” of resource uses, habitat / biodiversity conservation, pollution prevention and reduction, and livelihood improvements for poverty reduction, coupled with awareness raising and restructuring coastal policy making mechanisms with multisectoral stakeholder involvement.

PEMSEA Senior Programme Officer, Mr. Adrian Ross, visited the MRC in June 2006, and met with Mr. Christoph Feldkotter, Technical Advisor of MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme on Watershed Management Project. The discussion found that PEMSEA and MRC-GTZ share the same objectives in helping the concerned countries in the fields of policy analysis and advice, information and knowledge management; and capacity building; and it is for the benefits of the countries that the PEMSEA initiative in ecosystem based management of river basins, estuaries and coastal seas be linked with the MRC activities, including MRC-GTZ. At the PEMSEA’s invitation, Mr. Keu Moua, MRC Secretariat staff member, attended the Second East Asian Seas Congress, Haikou, China, 12-16 December 2006, including its workshop on the ecosystem based management to facilitate knowledge sharing between the two projects.

In April 2007, I visited the MRC and met with Mr. Bouribuon, Director of Natural Resources Development Planning Division of MRC and Mr. Christoph Mor, Technical Coordination Advisor, to explore possible collaborative activities in Lao. Considering that the Xedon River Basin in the southern part of Laos is a confluence of the Mekong River, capacity development for integrated Xedong river basin management involving littoral provinces and communities could be an area of partnership between the two projects. Discussion touched on the sharing of available information on the Xedon River Basin.

PEMSEA is looking forward to forging partnership with MRC-GTZ to further the cooperation between us, moving from information and knowledge sharing to joint development and implementation of projects in capacity development for the concerned countries with regard to integrated watershed / catchment management, including the provision of policy analysis, knowledge management, human resource development, scientific and technical support to the governments and communities. PEMSEA will take the opportunities to be offered by further staff exchanges between the two projects to discuss partner arrangements on the areas of mutual interests.

STAP Roster Review:

GEF/UNDP Project on Implementation of the

Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia

Preface

A review of this kind can take different approaches and perspectives and each reviewer will certainly have his/her own views. As a preface, I admit that I have my own ideas about how best to promote a strategy for the sustainable development of the Seas of East Asia. This is inevitable given a topic of this scope and with such a wide range of possible approaches about how to best implement it. Any critical statements are intended to encourage the planners and implementers of this project to think beyond the strategies being proposed. Most importantly, all my comments are in good faith and given the critical need for programs such as this one to protect and sustain our coastal and marine resources, I certainly hope that it can proceed with adequate support in the most effective and timely manner possible.

Introduction

The proposed project builds on a tremendous legacy of experience and good work as implemented through PEMSEA over the last 12 years. The project has momentum and a broad constituency that is quite well formed in a number of countries. Clearly in reviewing the results of PEMSEA and its outputs through its results of people trained, policies formed and adopted, ICM programs planned and implemented in various countries among many others, the program deserves to continue in some form. Yet, when one considers that the progression from its original title of: “Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia” to the new title of: “Project on Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia”, one cannot help but wonder if the “Project” is not taking on too much?

The implications of a sustainable development strategy (SDS) are very broad and go way beyond the general mandate of integrated coastal management (ICM) that is cited as the main implementing strategy within the Project proposal. Thus, although it is good to have a vision that leads the project to bigger and better outcomes, can it justify implying that the Project, in the long term, will implement a SDS? In addition, sustainable development, although a laudable goal, is very difficult to define in real terms and outcomes. And, although almost no one will contradict the need to move towards sustainable development, because it is hard to define, it is quite easy to avoid those actions that are essential to achieve it. ICM is only one tool in the long road to sustainable development. In addition, ICM, in its own right is rarely achievable and quite difficult to define. Thus, it may be prudent to make this project more focused on particular issues that can be solved over a limited time horizon using clearly defined strategies. I also suggest that these issues be well-rooted in the coastal and marine realm so the project has a clear identity.

Focusing the Project theme is one aspect of building a successful program through time. Another aspect of focusing is the geographical extent. In reviewing the Project Proposal, the number of countries to be included is still increasing and that the geographic spread includes tropical and temperate areas as well as developed and lesser developed countries all linked by the “East Asian Seas”. There is also allusion to “ecosystem-based management” in the proposal that considers six large marine ecosystems (LME’s) as well as linkages between watersheds and land management and the seas. These are all logical and defendable at a certain scale of thinking and management. But, when we start looking into the nitty-gritty of coastal and marine management at a scale that improves the status of resources, their productivity, human interactions and use patterns, livelihoods, water quality and other parameters and considerations, the scale is very much smaller. Also, when we consider the varying capacities of the 12 East Asian littoral states included in the Project, it is questionable to what extent that they all compliment each other in useful ways. It also raises the question if they should all be included in the first place?

In relation to the six LMEs and the natural connections of the seas that create trans-boundary issues such as oil spills, other forms of water pollution, movement of introduced species and other issues, it should be noted that 99 percent of the coastal and marine issues in the 12 littoral states of the project are within their own boundaries and not influenced by the other states. There are a few exceptions that need particular attention such as shared resources bordering Philippines and Malaysia, all the issues surrounding the Spratly Islands and some transnational shipping issues among others. But for the most part, the continuing degradation of the East Asia Seas and coastal resources are the result of weak or non existent national and local government policies and limited ability to implement ICM within nations. This raises the question as to why the Project focuses so much on international, trans-boundary, regional bodies and other “regional mechanisms” that may be questionable in their ability to deal with the national issues. In fact, the real issues of coordination and cooperation are almost entirely internal to most of the countries, especially those with the richest tropical resources such as Indonesia and Philippines.

In reviewing the project context and background information, it appears that the program has grown beyond its ability to deliver tangible outcomes at a scale that will sufficiently generate more buy-in, counterpart and action. Although tangible successes are cited and documented in the recent PEMSEA evaluation, I question their credibility in one case. When a program is spread thinly over 12 countries and involved in many different kinds of activities and interactions, the thread of commonality gets stretched and sometimes lost. In viewing PEMSEA as an outsider, this is the appearance one sees. And, although many of the PEMSEA stakeholders cite positive outcomes that are well documented, these outcomes are variable and without too many commonalities which creates a problem of identity. Thus, the project could benefit from a more issue-based management approach within a more focused framework than is currently proposed.

These introductory paragraphs set the stage for some important directional changes to make the proposed Project more focused, effective and doable. This may require some scaling back of aspirations and trying to find more common threads in all the proposed activities. It will also require that certain country programs, such as in high biodiversity areas such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam that share common valuable and ecologically linked resources, that more emphasis be given to these areas in contrast to the northern states that border on quite different and less diverse marine regimes. This shift might also require scaling back some planned “regional” interactions since these may not all be required to effectively assist in improving ICM in the countries of concern.

Key issues

Scientific and technical soundness of the project

The scientific basis of the project as proposed is sound in that it is based on the most recent and tested scientific knowledge regarding conservation and management of marine and coastal resources as tested in Asia. PEMSEA has been careful to utilize a science-based management support system that will continue in the new Project. But as to the whether there is sufficient information and knowledge available on the dynamics, functioning and structure of the ecosystems covered is a big question given the scope of the program. While the background information on the status and quality of the coastal and marine systems is accurate for the most part, it only touches on a small portion of the geography to be covered and has to make many general statements. The background and contextual (baseline) information is mostly focused on the tropical marine ecosystems and not much on the northern areas included within the program. To the extent that the program is able to support management regimes that focus on particular areas and ecosystems, part of the management process will be to improve on the baseline information for these areas. This would also need to be fully internalized with the local and national governments of concern and not dependent on the Project as such.

The approaches mentioned for collecting relevant information for management of resource uses and their impacts, local economic activities, water management etc. are mostly suggested to be participatory. The question to be asked is at what scale will participatory approaches be applied? It is known that the more contact stakeholders have with a resource area or to the extent they are dependent on a particular resource base, they will generate more responsive and effective management plans. To this extent, the project will need to engender site-specific management in appropriate areas of concern working through local governments and stakeholders. It is not clear to what extent this will be possible given the broad focus of the project.

There is mention of the need to address the inter-linkages between water-related environmental issues and root causes behind different environmental problems. This is implied in the ecosystem-based approach to management that is suggested as a paradigm that ICM needs to consider and include. This raises the question of boundaries to the project. ICM can be applied in many different ways and can include watershed management as a way to mitigate downstream pollution of the marine environment. But, a small project cannot provide meaningful technical assistance in such broad fields of environmental management where watersheds are large and complex. And, the ability to measure change in management areas will be limited.

From a scientific and technical perspective, the scope of the project is quite broad and somewhat ill-defined. As stated in the introduction to this review, the broad scope as suggested in the title and also in geography to be covered. Also, the issues described in the background information and baseline are more focused but do not exactly match the overall objectives and strategies of the Project that are broader. A more careful matching of the management issues to be addressed is needed with the proposed objectives, strategies and outcomes. Linking issues to objectives will give the project a more tangible and doable framework.

Questions related to the use of technology

The “technology” used in this project is mostly related to communication tools and dissemination of information and in the conduct of training and planning workshops of various kinds. It also pertains to the methods used in bringing people together and in soliciting the support of policy makers and key government officials as well as those from the private sector. The methods used in accomplishing these tasks are quite dependent on the personalities and skills of the project personnel to be successful. Under PEMSEA, the training program was well developed and accepted.

The training activities and modules can benefit from a continuation of the information system developed under PEMSEA. Also, as the Program has This raises an issue of the transition from PEMSEA to the new Project that is whether the techniques used in PEMSEA can be continued as such.evolved so have the training needs in the ICM demonstration sites that require more diverse and specialized agendas. The training modules might also have to become more responsive to particular site needs in each country.

Questions related to institutional arrangements

The Project proposes the development and institutionalization of a regional body to oversee the implementation of the SDS in the countries of concern. This body is already tentatively formed but commitments are still lacking from the most of the countries in terms of monetary support. Nevertheless, each country has signed the Putrajaya Declaration for a SDS that commits them to the process as spelled out in the agreement of 2004. A concern in relation to the formation and capacity building needed for such a regional body is that it could take a significant portion of the Project resources to make it functional and sustainable. It is suggested that the value of investing in this regional body with its broad goals be carefully weighed with the value of providing more focused technical assistance to particular countries in need. It would be prudent to keep aspirations for the regional SDS body limited and straightforward. It is also suggested that this body be connected or linked to other already existing regional bodies such as ASEAN or other that have a complementary agenda. This also raises the issue of the appropriateness of all of the country members since the commonality among the 12 to 14-nation group is difficult to ascertain. It is more efficient to link countries with common resource bases and issues to be addressed.

The institutional arrangements of most urgent concern are those within nations and down to sub-national levels. It is at this level that most ICM will be implemented and where most assistance is needed to ensure that ICM can be more widely implemented.

Questions on demonstration sites

Demonstration sites where selected under PEMSEA and will apparently be continued in the new Project and/or new ones selected. It would appear that the sites were selected with good rationale and that work has proceeded in some areas much more effectively than others depending largely on the ability of the national and local governments to implement ICM in a meaningful way. Although ICM has commonalities among various countries at a meta-level that is somewhat theoretical, sharing lessons from one country to another has limited relevance because of basic legal, institutional, economic and governance differences between and among countries. Nevertheless, the value of sharing aspects of ICM site lessons with others is still a useful learning tool. Also, PEMSEA and the new Project follow an “adaptive management” approach. To the extent that this is true, the process of learning and refinement within the adaptive management framework can be a common basis for sharing lessons among and within countries.

PEMSEA has consistently cited ICM successes in Xiamen, China that are documented and impressive. Yet, these do not easily translate to Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam or other lesser-developed countries and without the more centralized approach used in China. This highlights how the Project needs to group countries in learning networks. Or in some cases, it should just work in countries separately and focus on improving the situation within primarily.

The point of relevance of sharing lessons across countries again points to the need for a balance of national activities versus regional activities such as international conferences, exchanges among countries and other events. For example, even all the information posted on the PEMSEA website and information system, which is excellent, is most likely not often used by local managers in a country like Indonesia. Whereas, more hands on and localized planning and capacity building workshops will go a long ways in Indonesia that relate to difficulties within the country and to the evolution of ICM within its legal and institutional setting. Thus, strategic and well thought out use of Project resources through adaptive project management is needed.

Identification of the global environmental benefits

The proposed project clearly identifies global environmental issues linked to the East Asian Seas and the potential benefits to be derived from the Project. These are well articulated although there appears to be better understanding in the project proposal of the tropical issues and benefits to be derived from protection and management of these resources. The potential global environmental benefits from the Project are large while the difficulty is in measuring such benefits. The PEMSEA Program accomplished most of its intermediate results but fell short in accomplishing outcomes measured in terms of environmental improvements and change. Thus to what degree the Project can achieve global environment benefits/outcomes that are scientifically measurable is uncertain. To the extent possible, outcomes will be through ICM demonstration sites that have baseline data and are conducting monitoring and evaluation programs that document change over time. Global benefits could also be measured in countries that have baseline data and also conduct monitoring of change overtime at larger scales than an ICM demonstration site. But, it is unlikely that such data is available and there is probably no one county capable of achieving this within the timeframe of the Project.

No negative environmental effects can be anticipated from the Project as designed. The only possible negative outcome that could be construed might be in the relative amount of resource dedicated to regional activities, international travel, large conferences and other similar events as opposed to more focused national level activities that add value to national ICM programs. This trade off, although somewhat obvious, easily gets overlooked in the day-to-day management of a regional project. The management philosophy determines the direction and needs to be spelled out more clearly in the Proposal. A bias toward more focused national activities might produce the measurable environmental outcomes desired.

How does the project fit within the context of the goals of GEF

The project fits well within the overall strategic thrust of the GEF-funded International Waters (IW) activities. As proposed it should assist groups of countries to better understand the environmental concerns of their IWs and work collaboratively to address them in some form. It will also build the capacity of existing institutions both regionally and nationally and it intends to implement measures that address selected trans-boundary environmental concerns. While all of these statements are true, the Project, given its broad focus can achieve these outcomes more or less depending on many decisions yet to be made. The outcomes in this realm depend in part on points raised elsewhere in this review.

Regional context

The regional scope is certainly present in the Project but whether the scope is too large to be an effective mechanism to move forward with remains to be determined. Based on almost 30 years working in Southeast Asia, I know the difficulties of building meaningful regional partnerships that last and that accomplish tangible outcomes. The management of PEMSEA knows this equally well. Certainly there are examples of regional collaboration in the realm of marine science that have brought benefits to multiple countries through the collaboration of academic institutions within Southeast Asia. There are examples of adoption of standard data collection and processing protocols, use of data for management design across borders and more. But, the regional collaboration among countries through top levels of government in the field of environmental management is still weak and almost non-existent in most instances. Thus, the vision of moving towards a common SDS is certainly a big one that cannot easily be answered.

If we take just one issue that could benefit from regional collaboration such as prevention of oil pollution from shipping, we can cite successes and failures. On the one hand, most countries have signed onto important international agreements that affect shipping and protocols for transport of oil. In spite of the number of meetings and efforts to attain a common level of adherence to these agreements, countries like the Philippines are not yet close to attaining a clean and safe oil shipping industry. The solution to this issue is mostly an internal Philippine activity since the petroleum transport industry is controlled by local companies. Regional meetings and agreements will not necessarily change this without the real commitment of the Philippine government and without some concerted and financially supported technical assistance to facilitate the needed improvements in the private sector. Once again the lesson points to the need for a balance of regional, national and sub-national activities to achieve useful results.

Replicability and sustainability of the project

The Project as proposed cannot be replicated as such since it is unique and depends wholly on the buy in and support of the member countries. But, it if works, it will replicate itself since it has to become self-sustained to succeed. The proposed regional mechanism should provide focus and means for coordinating national efforts, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of individual country undertakings. Involvement of the private sector, inter-governmental financial institutions, investors and commercial banks are all important for sustainability. Thus, to the degree that a regional body can become functional and perform these tasks, the project can be replicated through its own sustainability.

But to be realistic, the history of multi-country institutional arrangements working efficiently and ensuring financial sustainability for its own operation are few and far between. They may take years to form and may or may not pan out over time depending on the needs of each country involved. Presently there are several regional fisheries management organizations such as WESPAC that were started 20 or more years ago. They are generally very poorly supported by their member countries despite the relative crisis in fisheries management in the region today. These facts need to be considered when trying to make the Project sustainable and highlight the need to learn from other regional organizations and their problems. Also, PEMSEA has had some difficulty in establishing lasting public private partnerships needed to assist with sustainability beyond the project. Partnerships are difficult to form and thus need to be very carefully developed and nurtured over several years to make them viable.

Linkages to other focal areas, programs and action plans at regional or subregional levels

The Project has various natural links to other GEF focal areas and programs at regional and sub-regional levels. A comment is that the Project needs to focus on those focal areas and programs that will be mutually beneficial to communicate and cooperate with. Numerous international conventions, treaties and agreements exist among the countries of the East Asian Seas while probably few are strictly implemented or adhered to. And because the architecture of marine agreements is complex for trans-boundary issues among others being very strategic and focused will ensure some level of improvement in the implementation of such agreements among countries. And, it is possible that not all countries from the EAS need to be involved in all agreements. Some might involve only two countries. The Project needs to identify those multinational agreements that are effective and hold good potential and that the majority of countries are interested to pursue.

Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project

“Stakeholders” in the proposed Project can have many different meanings. In this regard, stakeholders could be better defined in the Proposal. This is because stakeholders range from nations to local fishers and private sector tourism operators. In ICM demonstration sites that involve area-wide interventions, community involvement and stakeholder participation are especially important to be successful. PEMSEA set a good record for stakeholder involvement and indicates the new Project will follow this path. A more pertinent question is whether the Project will have the resources for adequate stakeholder involvement. National and local government and private institutions will need to play major roles to assist with stakeholder involvement. Although, it is not expected that the question of stakeholder involvement could be spelled out in the Project proposal, more description of this process would be useful.

Capacity building aspects

The proposed Project is geared towards building capacity at the regional and national levels. The balance of effort at these levels, as discussed, still needs to be determined in more exact terms. Implementing ICM demonstration sites requires capacity building at local government levels. The intensity of efforts at this level can be quite high. It is at this level that the project needs to bring in partners as much as possible in various collaborative agreements to work together. The Project design does incorporate these kinds of agreements while those that might make the most difference at the local levels will not be determined until activities begin at the ICM project sites. But successful local level interventions require consistency over time using familiar technical assistance and consultants that can integrate well with the local decision makers and managers. Sporadic and variable technical assistance does not lead to measurable results in local projects. In this regard, the investments needed are often larger than anticipated, especially in the lesser developed countries. In the existing design, the Project may be underestimating the resources needed to fully develop and implement ICM demonstrations to produce tangible outcomes.

Innovativeness

The Project design can be considered to be extremely innovative. What is lacking is realism in how to accomplish the project goals and objectives. Of course, the innovative strategies will help make it work while these strategies are dependent on having sufficient innovative leaders within the Project team and framework. The project needs to build a strong and dynamic team that encourages leadership and autonomy in its management system so that innovative actions can occur at multi levels and in different contexts and areas. Project management should avoid being too rigid and hierarchical so that the team will take their own initiatives. Also, by adopting a “rolling design” that builds on the principles of adaptive management, the Project may be more efficient and innovative.

Specific comments on the Proposal

1. Suggest a change in title that focuses more on marine and coastal management such as: “Implementation of a Strategy for Integrated Coastal Management within the Sustainable Development Framework for the Seas of East Asia”.

2. Project Context: Need to emphasize tangible successes based on actual coastal management projects to get the buy in of the countries of concern.

3. The Current Situation: This presents an excellent overview of the need for improved coastal and marine management in the region. It could also highlight the need for more incentives and sanctions within and among nations to work towards the achievement of a sustainable resource system for the Seas of East Asia. Some key references would be useful in this section since there are many good studies that could be cited.

4. The discussion of the six LMEs is very brief and adds an element of scale that appears to be almost unmanageable. Working in one LME alone could easily consume the entire Project. Thus, some sense of focus is needed here and not all the LMEs can be treated equally within the Project. This section also raises the questions about mixing the south and north LMEs in the same project. These are quite different and do not easily augment each other in terms of lessons, institutions and systems of management.

5. The Current Situation discussion on issues focuses mostly on the tropical coastal resources which is logical and could help focus the objectives of the Project.

6. The Current Situation on oil spills could mention the need to strengthen national regulations and control of private shipping companies.

7. The Current Situation on institutional and sectoral context needs to be careful not to exaggerate accomplishments and to give credit to partners that assisted with some of the results. An example is the Presidential Executive Order (EO) signed in June 2006 adopting ICM as a national strategy in the Philippines. This EO was not initiated by PEMSEA but by the Coastal Resource Management Project supported by USAID over about 5 years through a series of workshops at the local and national levels in which PEMSEA was occasionally represented. In addition, last minute changes made in the EO eroded much of the value of the EO as originally drafted and agreed upon by the local stakeholders.

8. Within the Current Situation, it is mentioned that the SDS-SEA partnership agreement will provide the needed regional institutional arrangements to consolidate gains and put implementation of the SDS-SEA on a self-sustaining path. This is a reasonable goal while the project should not be strictly tied to this outcome or to this mechanism since it may or may not prove to be an efficient mechanism. The Project also needs alternative paths to follow.

9. Most of issues discussed in the Current Situation occur within nations and are quite country specific. In this regard, the overall strategy of the Project needs to be focused on addressing some of these issues in real terms. General regional approaches to these issues will not necessarily solve them.

10. Strategically aligning sharing of lessons among countries is important. The recent Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference in Indonesia highlighted this reality as Korea presented its situation and found little interest on the part of the Indonesians. Indonesia as an example highlights the need to fully understand its system before ICM can be furthered.

11. Under Baseline and Alternative Scenarios, the baselines are being affected by many coastal management projects in each country that could be mentioned. Although partnership building is a key strategy among countries, the real partners in coastal management are the large donor projects supported by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, USAID in Philippines and Indonesia, and other bilateral donors.

12. In the section on Project Rationale and Continuity, it is stated that: “there are strong socio-economic security motivations for having a unified approach towards managing the coastal and marine resources of the region…”. This may not be the best motto to guide the project since the reality in each country is very different in that coastal management approaches are extremely different in order to respond to local needs and systems. What works in China is a contrast to what works in Indonesia or Philippines. Although there are lessons to be shared, there is certainly no one recipe that will fit all. Alluding to an “adaptive management” process might serve the Project better.

13. In the discussion on scaling up ICM, this needs to be within countries and built on systems that are working in each country. In the larger countries, there is a process of devolution of authority and jurisdictions to local governments. This is where the largest challenges lie to make ICM effective through building capacities of local governments.

14. The investments of GEF in PEMSEA should also be contrasted with investments of other donors in the countries of operation. This is especially important when one considers that many of the achievements of PEMSEA have been in association with and partly dependent on the other donor programs.

15. The Project Goal and Objectives would be more effective if made more specific and doable. The Goal and Objectives now read like a vision. They are not measurable through a system of indicators. A simple result and indicator matrix for the Project would give perspective and be helpful in project planning.

16. Mention of particular strategic partnerships with key organizations with similar goals and objectives is needed in the design. An example would be to combine international conferences instead of having large conferences wholly supported by PEMSEA.

17. The need for the development of a regional state of the coasts reporting system is interesting but questionable. Each country needs a system that works for the country so that the information is focused on a scale that assists national policy makers. A regional report will say little to national policy makers unless there is a complete country report within the regional report. An example of a useful regional report was the Reefs at Risk Report of the World Resources Institute that focused on collecting and analyzing the data of several years at both the country and regional level. In the end, it produced country level reports that were useful for policy makers and for education.

18. The Plan of Action for transforming PEMSEA into a long term, self-sustained regional implementation mechanism for the SDS of SEA will need to fully consider the challenge of long-term sustainability. This mechanism will need to operate together with and in consideration of the UN agencies and their mandates in the countries. Presently, most other UN environmental regional bodies are quite weak.

19. Output B.2: National policy, legislative and institutional reforms… will be a very useful activity. This could produce important results for the Project.

20. The “Scaling up ICM programs” activity is an extremely useful component. The only note of caution might be that one “ICM Code” may not be the best direction to move since each country will need an appropriate system. Principles can be the shared but a code for any one country will need to be differentiated. In the Philippines, for example, the evolving ICM certification system needs is responsive to local governments, their capacities and their jurisdictions under national law. A generic international code will add little to the evolving system and may just confuse local policy makers and managers.

21. Regarding the “Twinning Arrangements for Ecosystem-based management”, such agreements with international organizations and the private sector will need to bring funding. The ecosystems being discussed are large and complex and the institutions required for their management are mostly not yet existent. Each LME could be a whole project in itself.

22. The suggested training and scholarship programs are needed and can help build professional capacity. Adequate resources should be allocated for this activity.

23. Websites are useful depositories for all the Project information and can serve as a functional library and way of organizing much information. Nevertheless, local stakeholders do not always use these means of obtaining information so there is still a need for other means of disseminating important documents.

24. A small grants program is another excellent way to build local capacity in ICM by funding local projects and organizations.

Summary

The comments included in this review are intended to help guide an improved version of the Project proposal. My main message is that given the level of funding of this project, which is quite small, I think it would be prudent to scale back some of the goals and objectives and make them more focused on doable actions. Parts of the proposal are focused and will add much to improving ICM in the region. Others, as noted, are broad and open-ended so that the project will not have adequate guidance to follow without more measurable objectives and outcomes. Also, the 3-year time span of this funding proposal is rather short and thus needs a specific road map of actions to be taken by the project team. To the extent that the Project can improve the state of ICM in individual countries, it will be a success. And measuring these positive changes through local monitoring and evaluation activities will help make the project more sustainable since it will increase the buy in of local and national organizations. At the same time, this potential and measurable success will rest on the strategic balance of local actions versus regional activities and how they contribute to progress at the local, national and regional levels of implementation.

_________________________

Submitted by A. White

September 7, 2006

Response to STAP Review

Introduction

The comments by the STAP Reviewer were indeed thought provoking and insightful, based on his many years of experience working on donor-supported projects in countries of the region. Recurring concerns of the STAP Reviewer were: the breadth of the regional project; the regional institutional arrangement; national versus regional focus; tangibility of outcomes; scientific soundness; and global environmental benefits.

These points are well appreciated and recognized by the participating countries that have agreed to cooperate and work collectively toward the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA). One cannot deny the immensity of the task of achieving ‘sustainable development’. As emphasized by the STAP Reviewer, this laudable goal will take much longer than three years and will require many more resources than those available for the GEF project. The purpose of the next three years, however, is to mobilize the partnership arrangements, implementing mechanisms and core capacities for achieving sustainable development over the longer term. The major outcome of the project will not be sustainable development across the region, but rather an incremental step with essential building blocks to bolster national and local governments’ understanding and capacity regarding “how” to eventually reach this target. The project is aimed at: catalyzing focused actions of national and local governments; mobilizing the intellectual capital of the region to enhance sound decision-making through scientific input; building awareness and capacities in core sectors; engaging communities and POs in on-the-ground sustainable development projects; leveraging skills and investments from the private sector; and strengthening international support and cooperation in the implementation of the SDS-SEA through Strategic Partnership arrangements.

The proposed project is built upon the foundation of 12 years of experience, interaction, process development and demonstration, capacity building, and confidence strengthening among governments and other sectors, as part of the PEMSEA Regional Programme. The project was developed over a three-year period of planning and consultation, lead by the participating countries and involving international agencies and organizations, local governments, the private sector and the academe. PEMSEA’s Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluations also served as guideposts to address weaknesses in the current strategies and processes of the Regional Programme and to build on the strengths. The project is the initial stage of a 10-year transformation process towards a shared goal of a long-term, sustainable regional mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation. Countries are committing substantial resources to ensure the success of the project. GEF has the means and the opportunity to further the advancements of the past 12 years, by catalyzing, strengthening and participating in the implementation of this innovative partnership approach to sustainable development.

The response to the STAP Review is divided into two parts, namely general comments and specific comments. In many instances, the comments of the STAP Reviewer are in contrast to the conclusions and recommendations of the Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluations, which were comprised of six noted international experts, with years of practical experience in coastal and ocean governance, sustainable development, knowledge transfer, and program management and evaluation, which spent a total of three months evaluating the PEMSEA Regional Programme. The Mid-Term Evaluation Report^{^[7]} and the Terminal Evaluation Report^{^[8]} (TER) served as purposeful resource documents during the preparation of the Project Document. Thus, in responding to the STAP Review, and particularly with respect to the general comments that represent the personal opinions of the STAP Reviewer, reference has been made to specific sections and paragraphs of the TER that vary from such opinions. In view of the fact that the PEMSEA participating countries, UNDP and GEF adopted the TER and its conclusions and recommendations at the recent 12^th PSC Meeting of the PEMSEA Regional Programme, it is hoped that the responses are considered to be consistent with opinions and perspectives of the concerned parties.

STAP Review General Comments	Responses
Thematic scope: The project may be taking on too much; may be better to focus on particular issues that can be solved over a limited time horizon using more clearly defined strategies.	The thematic scope of the project has been reviewed and clarified as suggested. The project is focused on putting into operation a ‘core set’ of partnership arrangements, capacities and capabilities at the regional, national and local levels that will facilitate the expansion and sustainability of SDS-SEA implementation over the longer term.
Geographic scope: Considering the varying capacities of the East Asian littoral states, it is questionable to what extent that they all compliment each other in useful ways. Should they all be included in the project?	The SDS-SEA recognizes that 6 LMEs are interlinked politically, socially, economically, and environmentally, and the countries who share their resources undoubtedly have different perspectives and capacities to manage them effectively. Capacity disparity among countries and among regions within countries is a root cause of the continuing destruction and degradation of the region’s resources. A principal strength of the proposed regional implementing mechanism is the potential to build better relationships among countries and other concerned sectors, share responsibility, transfer knowledge and capacities across boundaries, and replicate good practices across projects and programs at the national and regional levels. Under this approach, capacity disparities among countries are gradually being reduced through on-the-ground implementation and experience from within the region (TER, Sub-sections 2.46 and 2.47).
Trans-boundary vs. national focus: The project focuses on international, trans-boundary, regional bodies and other “regional mechanisms.” Therefore, the ability to deal with national issues – where the real issues of coordination and cooperation lie – may be questionable.	The project is designed to cut across three levels of governance, namely regional (e.g., regional implementing mechanism), national (e.g., national policy reforms; ICM scaling up programs; and enhanced capacity building programs), and local (ICM implementation; community participation; and financing and investment in pollution reduction). Each level of governance has a unique mandate and capacity to facilitate and to implement. PEMSEA’s experience has demonstrated that bottom-up and top-down management approaches conducted in a simultaneous and supportive fashion can accelerate change in policies and behavior (TER, Lesson 3, Para 6.6). This is the strategy that has been applied in the project, with Component A designed to address the regional mechanism, and Components B, C, D, E and F building national and local implementation capacities.
Tangibility of outcomes: PEMSEA/SDS-SEA may have “grown beyond its ability to deliver tangible outcomes at a scale that will sufficiently generate more buy-in, counterpart and action” Thus, the project could benefit from a more issue-based management approach within a more focused framework than is currently proposed.	The project has been designed with the goal of assisting the concerned countries to establish their core capacities and strategies on “how” to implement the SDS-SEA in a sustainable manner, rather than to undertake the implementation on behalf of the participating countries (TER, Lesson 1, para 6.3). We agree with the STAP Reviewer that this would be far too ambitious, not to mention being totally inconsistent with the SDS-SEA. Thus, each component of the project has been designed to develop a significant aspect of the required core capacities, namely: national policy and coordinating mechanisms; ICM scaling up programs; twinning arrangements in support of ecosystem-based management; capacity development and application; financing and investment; and partnerships among international agencies/financial institutions. In response, countries have confirmed their respective priorities and resource commitments for the transformation process, as well as the desired schedule, outcomes and outputs over a 10-year period (see Annex 1).
Scientific and technical soundness: Sufficiency of information and knowledge available on the dynamics, functioning and structure of the ecosystems covered is a big question given the scope of the program. At what scale will participatory approaches be applied? The project will need to engender site-specific management in appropriate areas of concern working through local governments and stakeholders. It is not clear to what extent this will be possible given the broad focus of the project. Can such a small project provide meaningful technical assistance in such broad fields of environmental management where watersheds are large and complex? In this respect, a more careful matching of the management issues to be addressed is needed with the proposed objectives, strategies and outcomes.	The concern expressed by the STAP reviewer is well-appreciated. The project has been designed on the basis of best available scientific, technical and management information and expertise coming from projects and programs from around the region, as well as PEMSEA’s experience over the past 12 years. However, recognizing that there are knowledge gaps with regard to ecosystem dynamics and structure across the region, and also acknowledging that ecosystems change as a consequence of natural and manmade disturbances, the project has also included a scientific component (Component E) dedicated to overcoming identified knowledge gaps, as well as providing policy-makers with a sound scientific basis for decision-making. In addition, Components A, C, and D will engage the scientific institutions, Areas of Excellence (AOEs) and government agencies in the development and implementation of a State of Coasts reporting system, including monitoring and assessment of key indicators of change in coastal and marine ecosystems (TER, Sub-sections 2.32, 2.33 and 2.34). We agree with the comment from the STAP Reviewer concerning the importance of the participatory approach for stakeholder buy-in and commitment. The Stakeholder Involvement Plan in Annex 6 delineates how various stakeholders groups will be engaged in the planning and implementation of the SDS-SEA at the regional, national and local levels. The challenge is significant, but do-able. At the regional level, there is already a solid core of 16 multi-sectoral stakeholders that have supported the development of the SDS-SEA. In some participating countries, multi-sectoral coordinating mechanisms are already in place and addressing matters related to sustainable development. At the local level, a major process indicator in ICM program development is the organization of a multi-sectoral coordinating committee. The project builds upon these arrangements and mechanisms in order to promote a participatory approach among concerned sectors. Furthermore, by facilitating interaction among governments and sectors, and by documenting and disseminating the outcomes and benefits derived from multi-sectoral partnerships, the project will aid replication and strengthening of the approach at the respective levels (TER, Sub-section 3.1.3). As stated earlier, it is not possible for the project to implement the SDS-SEA for the countries. Rather the project is designed to assist the different levels of government and their constituent stakeholders with the implementation of a management system and process for addressing complex situations in coastal and watershed areas in an integrated and comprehensive manner. Each sub-project will have its own set of challenges, as well as strengths and limitations with respect to the capacities of the concerned national and local governments and stakeholders. The project will support the implementation of these sub-projects with the transfer and application of integrated management approaches and processes. The management issues, priority areas and schedule for achieving time-bound targets will be early outputs of each sub-project, in line with the available and required capacities (TER, Lesson 1, para 6.3).
Use of technology: Should the training techniques used in PEMSEA be continued as such or have needs in the ICM demonstration sites evolved that require more diverse and specialized agendas?	We agree with the STAP Reviewer’s comments. Training is not a static process, but one that must evolve to meet the demands of the countries. The project will provide a variety of capacity development opportunities to meet the diverse demands among countries and operating sites, including training-of-trainers, specialized skills training, internships, fellowships, study tours, and a graduate degree in ICM (Components C and E). The project will also collaborate with scientific and technical institutions, international agencies, donors, and other regional programs and projects to avail of training opportunities and/or conduct joint training initiatives to further meet the needs of countries and project implementers in the region, as well as outside the region (TER, Sub-sections 2.15 through 2.25). ICM demonstration sites are an important part of the capacity development strategy. Not only does the project focus on augmenting the capacity of these sites to manage and implement ICM, but also to develop these sites as viable learning centers for national ICM programs (Component C).
Institutional arrangements: The value of investing in a regional body to oversee SDS with broad goals should be carefully weighed with the value of providing more focused technical assistance to particular countries in need. This body needs to be connected to other already existing regional bodies such as ASEAN or others that have a complementary agenda.	While the comments are appreciated, there is another perspective on the regional mechanism that has been adopted by the participating countries (TER, Sub-sections 2.45 through 2.49). The regional mechanism and its partnership arrangements are seen by countries as a major driving force for national implementation programs by providing: a) a means of raising ocean and coastal governance on national agenda; b) a forum for confirming priorities, coordinating response programs, and avoiding duplication of effort in addressing transboundary environmental concerns across the six LMEs of the region; c) a vehicle for reducing conflicts, and establishing/strengthening partnerships with regional and international agencies and organizations working within the framework of the SDS-SEA, including ASEAN, COBSEA, and others; d) a source of information and knowledge regarding good practices and experiences in sustainable development and management of coastal and marine resources; e) a channel for accessing technical assistance and capacity development for SDS-SEA implementation; and f) an instrument for availing innovative financing and investment mechanisms at a regional, sub-regional and/or national level. On this basis, and after almost three years of consultation and negotiation, the countries collectively agreed to move forward with the regional implementing mechanism for SDS-SEA. They have requested GEF support for the early start-up of the mechanism, but at the same time have committed considerable resources in support of the mechanism as well, including full financial support for the PRF Secretariat Services.
Demonstration sites: The project needs to group countries in learning networks. Or in some cases, it should just work in countries separately.	A fundamental principle of ICM is adaptive management, meaning learning-by-doing, but within the context of a ‘plan-do-check-act’ methodology (TER, Subsection 2.25). The methodology facilitates a recurring process of ‘continual improvement’, which means that countries and/or local governments with different political systems, at different stages of development, and with different capacities, can apply the same methodology. There is no doubt that some localities will proceed through each cycle of the ICM process more rapidly and with better results than others, due to a number of reasons. But from the perspective of sustainable development, the ICM process facilitates movement towards the shared goal. The project recognizes the value of South-South cooperation and knowledge sharing, through the implementation of regional training programs, Regional Task Forces, EAS Congress, PNLG, etc. Sites that have progressed rapidly are able to share their lessons, outcomes, and impacts with other sites moving at a slower pace, thereby providing both incentive and guidance to their fellow practitioners/local government units. At the same time, the project has acknowledged the value of on-site training, capacity transfer and technical assistance. A training-trainers program will be implemented, along with the establishment of National ICM Task Forces and learning centers in selected countries. These are designed to provide on-site support to local governments for ICM implementation.
Global environmental benefits: PEMSEA accomplished most of its intermediate results but fell short in accomplishing outcomes measured in terms of environmental improvements and change. The degree to which the project can achieve global environment benefits/outcomes that are scientifically measurable is uncertain. Possible negative outcome might be in the relative amount of resource dedicated to regional activities, international travel, large conferences and other similar events as opposed to more focused national level activities that add value to national ICM programs. The management philosophy determines the direction and needs to be spelled out more clearly in the proposal. A bias toward more focused national activities might produce the measurable environmental outcomes desired.	PEMSEA’s Terminal Evaluation Report, Section 4, cites the contributions made by the PEMSEA Regional Programme to the GEF Operational Programme Objectives. Admittedly, most of these accomplishments are related to the development of partnerships, strategies, policies, capacities and awareness, at different levels of governance in the region, but nonetheless they have global benefit within the context of the WSSD POI and MDGs. The uncertainty regarding the global environmental benefits that are scientifically measurable during a three-year project is well-recognized. The project will initiate a system of monitoring and reporting that develops the capacity of countries to participate in such a process. The idea is that within three years, countries will have produced the first State of Coasts report for the region, providing a baseline for future reference across the region (Component A). In preparing the Project Budget, 29% of the available GEF grant has been allocated to regional initiatives (Component A), whereas 70.5% has been allocated to national and sub-national initiatives (Components B to F); less than 0.5% has been allocated to the coordination of the Strategic Partnership between UNDP and the World Bank. The proposed budget and related activities in these five components emphasize the importance of national and local initiatives, set within the framework of a regional strategy.
Regional context: Whether the scope is too large to be an effective mechanism to move forward with remains to be determined. Need for a balance of regional, national and sub-national activities to achieve useful results.	As noted previously, the participating countries have adopted the SDS-SEA as a platform for regional cooperation, and a framework for the development of national policy and programs for achieving sustainable development. The GEF project has been designed with these challenges in mind, and within the limitations of available resources. Achieving the vision of the SDS-SEA will take many years and considerable resources. This project will help countries put into place the core components for a sustainable, long-term program for SDS-SEA implementation at the regional, national and local levels (TER, Section 5, Recommendations).
Replicability and sustainability: Regional organizations are generally very poorly supported by their member countries despite the relative crisis in fisheries management in the region. In this regard the project needs to learn from other regional organizations and their challenges. Also, PEMSEA has had some difficulty in establishing lasting public private partnerships needed to assist with sustainability.	We agree with the comments of the STAP Reviewer concerning the history of regional organizations and their challenges. We would point out that these challenges are not unique to the East Asian region, but are common to many other region’s of the world as well, both developed and developing. PEMSEA has studied the regional mechanisms extensively since the signing of the Putrajaya Declaration in 2003, both within and outside of East Asia, and facilitated the conduct of regional experts’ forums, intergovernmental working group workshops, a Senior Government Officials meeting, and three intergovernmental Steering Committee meetings. In the end, presented with the options, and the respective benefits and constraints, the countries agreed that creating an intergovernmental/intersectoral regional mechanism, with a shared vision for development, which has been agreed to through consensus, remains a fundamental pillar for achieving sustainability(TER, Sub-section 3.1.4). The approach delineated in the project design is already being replicated, i.e., the first phase of PEMSEA began with two ICM sites. There are now 26 ICM sites, 18 of which have been developed without financial assistance from GEF. Several of these sites (i.e., Batangas; Bataan, and Cavite (Philippines); Chonburi (Thailand); Sihanoukville (Cambodia); and Bali (Indonesia)) have benefited from public-private partnerships, primarily with the private sector undertaking specific roles and responsibilities in implementing the respective coastal strategies. For example, in the Bataan project, the private sector is providing 50% of the financing for the ICM program, the Provincial Government the balance. These relationships between the public and private sectors have proven to be sustainable, as noted in the TER (Sub-sections 2.40 to 2.42). Another aspect of public-private partnership is private sector investment in environmental infrastructure, such as solid waste and sewage facilities. Admittedly, this has been a slow process, for a number of reasons, as spelled out in the TER (Para 2.29 to 2.31). However, progress is being made, and it is anticipated that at least two investment projects will be implemented before the completion of the current phase.
Linkages to other focal areas, programs and action plans at regional or subregional levels: The project needs to focus on those focal areas and programs that will be mutually beneficial to communicate and cooperate with.	The SDS-SEA addresses the very point being emphasized by the STAP Reviewer, i.e., the efficacy of implementing international conventions and agreements in an integrated manner (see the IMPLEMENT strategy of the SDS-SEA). Furthermore, the SDS-SEA identifies specific action programs at the national, local and regional levels, designed to facilitate the integration of the principles and objectives of MEAs into operating programs. The project responds by assisting countries to develop the required reforms and capacities, as pertinent to their situation, including GPA, WSSD POI and MDG.
Stakeholder involvement: Stakeholders could be better defined. Does the project have the resources for adequate stakeholder involvement? More description of the engagement/involvement process is needed.	Stakeholder involvement is not a separate activity of the project, but an essential ingredient in each component, as stated in para. 58 of the Project Document. The TER refers to the ‘inclusive partnerships’ that PEMSEA has employed in engaging relevant stakeholder groups at various levels and in all aspects of the work, which are critical to effectiveness and sustainability (TER, Section 6, Lessons Learned). The Stakeholder Involvement Plan, Annex 6 of the Project Document, defines the stakeholders and explains the engagement processes used by PEMSEA at the regional, national and local levels, as requested by the STAP Reviewer. National and local government resources will be required to achieve the goals of the Stakeholder Implementation Plan, and appropriate co-financing commitments have been made by the concerned governments.
Capacity building: The proposal may be underestimating the resources needed to fully develop and implement ICM demonstrations to produce tangible outcomes.	Over the past 20 years, US$ 200 to 300 million have been spent by donors in Philippines and Indonesia alone, in an attempt to establish sustainable integrated coastal area management programs at the community level. This project builds in-country and in-region core capacity to scale-up ICM programs, strengthening community-based management through a formal ICM framework and demanding national and local government buy-in through commitments to invest time, as well as human and financial resources, in order to achieve sustainability through ICM. PEMSEA’s ICM demonstration phase has been completed; the project will use existing working ICM sites as learning centers for national ICM programs. The project’s funding will be focused on building core of human resources, training materials, training programs, information networks, case studies, standards/codes, and incentives to encourage national and local governments to invest in ICM. The TER (paras 2.1 to 2.8) delineates the many tangible outcomes that can be achieved by providing local stakeholders with these necessary skills and tools.
Innovativeness: The project is innovative but lacks realism in how to accomplish goals and objectives.	The project design has been formulated on the basis of the experience of the PEMSEA Regional Programme. The realism questioned by the STAP Reviewer, has already been rated as highly satisfactory by the TER. Most importantly, countries have expressed their confidence in the PEMSEA approach by putting their co-financing into critical components of the project that will generate direct benefit at the national and local levels.

Specific Comments

STAP Review Specific Comments	Response
Title: Suggest a change in title that focuses more on marine and coastal management such as: “Implementation of a Strategy for Integrated Coastal Management within the Sustainable Development Framework for the Seas of East Asia”.	The suggested title change is not consistent with the GEF objective of implementation of the SAP that has been developed and adopted by the countries during the current phase of PEMSEA. In this case, the SAP is the SDS-SEA, and ICM implementation is only one component of the strategy. The current title, Implementation of the SDS-SEA, is a reflection of the direction and program adopted by the countries over the next 10-years.
Project Context: Need to emphasize tangible successes based on actual coastal management projects to get the buy in of the countries of concern.	Agreed. The following sentence has been added to the second paragraph. “Progress made through the Programme included: the establishment of six new national demonstration sites; implementation of 18 voluntary parallel ICM sites; sustained public-private partnership arrangements; inclusion of ICM practices in regulatory frameworks at national and local levels; confirmation of institutional and community arrangements for coastal and marine environmental management; development of intellectual capacity, scientific and technical skills through training programs and linkages with universities and scientific and technical institutions; enhanced awareness of the socio-economic benefits of ICM; and public participation in planning improved environmental facilities and services.”
The Current Situation: Ø an excellent overview; key references would be useful in this section since there are many good studies that could be cited Ø discussion of the six LMEs is very brief and adds an element of scale that appears to be almost unmanageable. Working in one LME alone could easily consume the entire Project Ø some sense of focus is needed here and not all the LMEs can be treated equally within the Project Ø also raises the questions about mixing the south and north LMEs in the same project. These are quite different and do not easily augment each other in terms of lessons, institutions and systems of management Ø discussion on issues focuses mostly on the tropical coastal resources which is logical and could help focus the objectives of the Project Ø oil spills could mention the need to strengthen national regulations and control of private shipping companies	Agreed. References have been added to the section. Agreed. Annex 8, Situational Analysis of the LMEs in the East Asian Region provides more detail about each LME and its challenges. While the SDS-SEA covers the six LME’s, the project is not focused on a specific LME. Rather emphasis is placed on helping governments to put in place the core capacities that will help them implement coastal and marine programs in a sustainable manner, and within the framework of the SDS-SEA. These core capacities will assist countries in implementing SAPs being developed by other GEF sub-regional programs, and other donors As stated above As stated above As stated above Agreed. The Gulf of Thailand initiative (Component D) will include this aspect. In fact, Cambodia is in the process of preparing a national regulation.
Institutional and Sectoral Context Ø give credit to partners that assisted with some of the results. An example is the Presidential Executive Order (EO) signed in June 2006 adopting ICM as a national strategy in the Philippines. This EO was not initiated by PEMSEA but by the Coastal Resource Management Project supported by USAID over about 5 years through a series of workshops at the local and national levels Ø the SDS-SEA partnership agreement will provide the needed regional institutional arrangements to consolidate gains and put implementation of the SDS-SEA on a self-sustaining path. This is a reasonable goal while the project should not be strictly tied to this outcome or to this mechanism since it may or may not prove to be an efficient mechanism. The Project also needs alternative paths to follow. Ø the overall strategy of the Project needs to be focused on addressing some of these issues in real terms. General regional approaches to these issues will not necessarily solve them. Ø Indonesia as an example highlights the need to fully understand its system before ICM can be furthered.	Agreed. We have added “donors” to list of partners in paragraph 24 b. The sentence now reads,” Partnerships among coastal provinces, municipalities, cities, national governments, donors, and NGOs facilitated the adoption of the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy and Bohai Sea Sustainable Development Strategy, the Presidential Executive Order adopting ICM as a National Strategy to Ensure Sustainable Development of the Coastal and Marine Environment and Resources in the Philippines, and national legislation on the Bohai Sea.” The fact is, however, EO 533 as approved by the President, was initiated, prepared, promoted, revised and facilitated by the Philippines DENR and PEMSEA. Agreed. Output A2: A Plan of Action for transforming PEMSEA into a long-term, self-sustained regional implementing mechanism for the SDS-SEA, is designed to evaluate, propose and build consensus on an appropriate path during the project. Agreed. A new sentence will be added to para. 47, as follows: “The strategy of the project is to put into operation a core set of partnership arrangements, capacities and capabilities at the regional, national and local levels that will facilitate the expansion and sustainability of SDS-SEA implementation, including key issues such as development of national policies concerning sustainable development, pollution reduction, etc., the scaling up of ICM to 5% of the region’s coastline, the development and implementation of investment plans for improved pollution reduction.” Agreed. Many valuable lessons have been learned from PEMSEA experience in Bali and Sukabumi. The national government has committed significant resources to scaling up ICM in Indonesia, and has indicated their desire to develop a National ICM Task Force to undertake the process. This project will provide the Task Force with the necessary skills and tools to proceed.
Under Baseline and Alternative Scenarios: Ø the baselines are being affected by many coastal management projects in each country that could be mentioned. Ø Although partnership building is a key strategy among countries, the real partners in coastal management are the large donor projects supported by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, USAID in Philippines and Indonesia, and other bilateral donors.	Agreed. PEMSEA has undertaken a review of national, bilateral and multilateral coastal and marine management projects being undertaken in each country. More than US$ 43 billion are being committed across the participating countries, as noted in Annex 2. This baseline information can be accessed from PEMSEA’s website. Disagree. The agencies identified are providing the funding, much of which goes to high-priced consultants who leave when the project is over. They are partners, but the partnership is short-term. The real partners are those who are in for the long-term; those who live with the risks, benefits, shortcomings and impacts of coastal management day-after-day, year-after-year, in an effort to continually improve the system in order to achieve sustainability. The real partners come from the local community, industry, media, religious organizations, fisherfolks, etc. No donor is willing or able to make such a commitment.
Project Rationale and Conformity: Ø What works in China is a contrast to what works in Indonesia or Philippines. Although there are lessons to be shared, there is certainly no one recipe that will fit all. Alluding to an “adaptive management” process might serve the Project better.	Agreed. Para 58 bis has been added, as follows: “Adaptive management underpins the various components of the project’s work program, in recognition of the many different and complex issues in coastal areas across the region. For example, the processes in each component are flexible and gradual; outputs serve as guideposts that may need to be realigned or at least rescheduled depending on the local situation; and progress is always measurable but the rate of progress is relative to capacity. These aspects of adaptive management, and others, will be applied throughout the implementation of the work program.”
Scaling up ICM Ø this needs to be within countries and built on systems that are working in each country. In the larger countries, there is a process of devolution of authority and jurisdictions to local governments. This is where the largest challenges lie to make ICM effective through building capacities of local governments.	Component C, ICM Scaling Up, focuses on setting in place the core capacities in selected countries to address these very issues. Establishing national policy, National ICM Task Force, ICM learning centers, and training programs and materials, are elements of the strategy to provide local governments with the necessary support to effectively develop and implement ICM.
Investments of GEF in PEMSEA should also be contrasted with investments of other donors in the countries of operation. This is especially important when one considers that many of the achievements of PEMSEA have been in association with and partly dependent on the other donor programs.	As noted above some US$ 43 billion in funding is being allocated to coastal and marine related projects in the region. This information is available on PEMSEA’s website.
Project Goal and Objectives Ø Need to be more specific and doable. The Goal and Objectives now read like a vision. They are not measurable through a system of indicators. A simple result and indicator matrix for the Project would give perspective and be helpful in project planning.	The developmental objective is visionary, but this does not mean that it progress cannot be measured. The Project Logical Framework, Annex 3, cites three process indicators that can be used to specifically measure progress towards the developmental objective, as follows: Ø EAS Partnership Council meeting a regular intervals, guiding and coordinating the regional framework of partnership programmes for SDS-SEA implementation; Ø Countries committing high-level officers to participate in the EAS Partnership Council; Ø Plan of Action adopted by the EAS Partnership Council transforming the regional partnership mechanism in a long-term, sustainable mechanism for SDS-SEA implementation. In addition, each of the outcomes and outputs of the project contribute to the developmental objective, thereby providing a comprehensive assessment of just how far the partnerships have progressed, and what their impact has been.
Strategic Partnerships: Ø key organizations with similar goals and objectives is needed in the design. An example would be to combine international conferences instead of having large conferences wholly supported by PEMSEA.	The EAS Congress is a good example of PEMSEA’s strategy of combining the resources and capacities of international agencies and organizations, national governments, international NGOs, etc. The Partnership Operating Arrangements, developed under the EAS Partnership Council, facilitate closer working arrangements among international partners, thereby avoiding duplication of effort, and wasting of resources.
Regional State of the Coasts reporting system Ø a regional report will say little to national policy makers unless there is a complete country report within the regional report.	The State of Coasts reporting system is being developed around national reporting systems. The national systems will generate the input to the regional SOC report (Activity A.1.5).
Plan of Action for transforming PEMSEA Ø need to fully consider the challenge of long-term sustainability. Ø Mechanism needs to operate together with and in consideration of the UN agencies and their mandates in the countries. Presently, most other UN environmental regional bodies are quite weak. Ø	Agreed. A consultative process will be employed to achieve consensus on the Plan of Action for a long-term sustainable regional mechanism, including the role and interactions with UN, international and regional bodies. As above
Output B.2: National policy, legislative and institutional reforms… will be a very useful activity. This could produce important results for the Project.	Agreed
ICM Code Ø may not be the best direction to move since each country will need an appropriate system. Ø Principles can be the shared but a code for any one country will need to be differentiated	Disagree. ISO standards are a good example of how internationally recognized elements/processes for effective management can be applied across organizations in different countries, with different political structures, and under different social, economic and environmental circumstances. Likewise, the ICM Code will be designed to enable a local government in any country to develop and implement ICM policy and processes, take action as necessary to improve its performance, and demonstrate conformity with the Code and national regulations through appropriate controls and documentation, all within the context of relevant national policy and legislation.
Twinning Arrangements for Ecosystem-based management Ø agreements with international organizations and the private sector will need to bring funding Ø ecosystems being discussed are large and complex and the institutions required for their management are mostly not yet existent. Ø Each LME could be a whole project in itself.	Not necessarily. Knowledge and skills transfer would be a valuable contribution to such projects as well. These are long-term projects, and the basic need is to enrich local understanding and capacity to implement. As stated earlier, the project is not focused on LMEs. Other sub-regional initiatives are being/will be undertaken on an LME level (e.g., South China Sea; Yellow Sea; Sulu-Sulawesi Seas) Agreed. There are three ongoing projects in the region that are focused on specific LMEs. The project will attempt to partner with these projects and others, in order to share resources, capacities and knowledge (Component D).
Training and Scholarship programs Ø needed and can help build professional capacity Ø Adequate resources should be allocated for this activity.	Agreed Agreed. The Programs for Areas of Excellence (Component E) is designed to set in place agreements with internationally and regionally recognized institutions in order to facilitate professional upgrading, using available resources/scholarship opportunities.
Websites are useful depositories Ø local stakeholders do not always use these means of obtaining information so there is still a need for other means of disseminating important documents.	Agreed. There are situations where local partners do not have easy access to websites, do not have computer skills, or are unable to read documents in English. Components C, D and E adopt a multi-media approach in information dissemination. In addition to internet, the project will assist with the establishment of ICM learning centers in selected countries, with the mission of information- and knowledge-sharing and transferring ICM skills to local governments and ICM practitioners within the milieu and language that are most acceptable and beneficial. The project will also facilitate twinning arrangements, national workshops and forums, ICM training manuals, practical guides, case studies, etc., as well as conduct training-trainers workshops, to facilitate training in local languages at the national and sub-national levels. Finally, the project will develop National ICM Task Forces in selected countries, to make possible in-country technical assistance and advice that is accessible by local stakeholders.
small grants program Ø another excellent way to build local capacity in ICM by funding local projects and organizations	Agreed. The project has developed a partnership arrangement with the GEF/UNDP Small Grants Programme, wherein US$ 1 million in grants have been earmarked for the inclusion of local organizations/community groups in project development and implementation, in support of sustainable development of marine and coastal areas. Other donors/organizations will be invited to participate in these community projects as well (Component E).

Response to Comments from Other Reviews

1. UNEP

UNEP comments on the project proposal: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia	Response:
In paragraph 31 of the project document, the UNEP/GEF project: Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Although this paragraph indicates, "Building on the past and ongoing national, regional and international efforts in the region, the SDS-SEA implementation project will facilitate further interaction and partnership arrangements among these efforts, addressing those environmental and resource use issues that cut across geographic, administrative and disciplinary boundaries in particularly", there is not further information how this can be done. In the mentioned UNEP/GEF project for South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) is being developed with focus on the priority transboundary international waters concern of degradation of critical habitats. The SAP will present a set of regionally agreed actions to be implemented under a specific institutional framework and financial arrangements for its implementation, both of which will be agreed upon at the time of SAP adoption. No information is presented in the project document, as to how the implementation of the SAP can be made in partnership with and based on the SDS-SEA framework.	The achievements of the SDS-SEA will be measured from the aggregate of all of the successes and impacts derived from the implementation of the sub-regional SAPs, other national and local initiatives, and the efforts of international organizations, corporate sector, etc. The impact of the SDS-SEA as a whole will be seen by knitting these achievements together. National policy and reforms in coastal and ocean governance are increasing throughout the region, The outcome is expected to inspire and encourage national and local leaders to take more proactive roles in addressing cross-boundary environmental and resource use issues at the regional and sub regional levels, When it comes to implementation of SAPs, governments are challenged on several fronts, not the least of which is the capacity to transform the SAPs into effective country programs. The SDS-SEA facilitates this process by providing countries with an integrated management framework and approach to overcoming destructive and conflicting uses of natural resources in river basins and coastal sea areas. The ICM approach has been demonstrated in East Asia at the local, national and sub-regional levels under the GEF-supported PEMSEA regional project, and has been recommended for country application in both the WSSD POI and Agenda 21. Note that scaling up national ICM programs is a key component of the country-driven SDS-SEA implementation project (Component C) Component A of the UNDP Project Document is designed to catalyze the operation of a regional partnership mechanism by which national, sub-regional and international stakeholders will interact and collaborate on the implementation of the SDS-SEA. As described in Component A, the regional mechanism consists of six elements, namely: a) the EAS Partnership Council; b) the PEMSEA Resource Facility; c) the Regional Partnership Fund; d) the EAS Congress; e) the Ministerial Forum; and f) the State of Coasts reporting system. The regional mechanism and the cooperative, overarching framework of the SDS-SEA are the means by which the implementation of the SAPs being developed under the SCS and YS LME projects, as well as those being planned in the Sulu and Sulawesi Seas, and Arafura and Timor Seas, can be facilitated and strengthened through information and knowledge sharing and technical assistance.

Paragraph 192 g. indicates, "Consultations have been undertaken with the two GEF regional projects (i.e., GEF/UNEP South China Sea LME project; and GEF/UNDP Yellow Sea LME project) to identify where and how the SDS-SEA can serve as a platform for stronger cooperation." However, as far as UNEP is concerned, any prior consultation did not lead to the identification of where and how the SDS-SEA can contribute to the UNEP/GEF project on South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand and resulting implementation of the SAP to be finalized very soon. UNEP is implementing the above-mentioned GEF project for South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. The project implementation is based on the UNEP network of government institutions, research/scientific institutions as well as experts, organized under the Coordination Body of the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA), which is the very reason and justification for UNEP implementing the project. If there is a specific action to take place in support of a future SAP implementation for the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, and if GEF would take an approach of coordination of implementation of the actions agreed upon and expressed in the SAPs in the target region of the proposed SDS-SEA project, UNEP would propose that UNEP would co-implement part of the proposed activities, particularly pertaining to the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.	Since the adoption of the SDS-SEA, the implementation of the regional strategy has been the subject of extensive consultations at the country and regional levels, including presentations and discussions during meetings of the South China Sea project, the Yellow Sea project, and COBSEA. In addition, all three regional organizations/projects were invited to participate in the annual meetings of the PEMSEA PSC, as well as to become partners in the recently established EAS Partnership Council. Thus far, the YS LME project has confirmed its partner status in the Council. The SDS-SEA embodies the priority issues and concerns of the countries with regard to the sustainable development of the six LMEs of the East Asian Seas, as well as the strategies, objectives and action programs for addressing those issues. The SDS-SEA has incorporated existing regional plans of action, programs and agreements, available scientific information, as well as relevant global environmental instruments and objectives into a comprehensive and practical management framework. However, as SAPs are developed for the individual LMEs or sub-regional sea areas within the region, it is expected that more detail on the root causes of priority problems, capacities and expectations of country and local stakeholders will be identified and employed to formulate site specific management response programs. Narrowing the geographic (and perhaps functional) scope of management programs should result in a focused definition of institutional, policy, regulatory, environmental, social and/or economic objectives and targets of the government and non-government stakeholders. The South China Sea is part of the seas of East Asia and the key issues are how the countries sharing these waterbodies can jointly and individually manage these large water bodies in a sustainable manner. The integrated coastal management approach does not exclude the management of habitats. In fact ICM is an important strategic policy and management framework for habitat management. The ICM approach provides the governance framework to ensure effective interventions to reverse the level of environmental degradation including habitats, water quality control, conflict resolution, natural hazard management, etc. at both local and regional level. The SDS-SEA on the other hand provides a broader sustainable development framework to address many of the issues that the GEF-UNEP SCS project also seeks to address. For example, the "Sustain", "Preserve" and "Protect" strategies of SDS/SEA cover similar activities that the current SCS project has been working on. The specific approach and management orientation will be subject to specific geographical and habitat considerations. Irrespective of whatever interventions are to be undertaken, the governance framework is basically the same.

Lastly, this project constitutes part of the 'strategic partnership' between the presently proposed project and the World Bank project. The latter World Bank project only deals with the land-based sources of pollution while the proposed UNDP project endeavors to cover a wider range of issues than land-based sources of pollution. In fact very little information on actual mechanism for the coordination between the two projects has been presented in the project document. It is quite apparent any lessons learnt from the Black-Sea Danube Strategic Partnership have been used in the development of this proposal.	Every effort has been made to distil lessons learned from the Black Sea-Danube Strategic Partnership in developing the East Asian Sea Strategic Partnership, including participation in the GEF-sponsored conference in Moldova, entitled Nutrient Pollution Control in the Danube-Black Sea Basin, in October 2006. This was a very helpful experience, for it allowed interaction between the implementers in the Danube-Black Sea Basin and the planners in the East Asian Seas region. The regional framework does not require any project to be subsumed under another project; instead it provides a framework and a platform through which all the concerned projects can work together, sharing information, replicate best practices and help each other in achieving the overall sustainable development goals that we all share. Component G and Annex 7 of the UNDP Project Document have been reworded to strengthen this intent.

Annex c: consultants to be hired for the project

*Position Titles*	$/ *person week*	*Estimated person weeks*	Tasks to be performed*
For Project Management
*Local*

*International*
Executive Director	2,875	156	Working under the guidance of the EAS Partnership Council/ Executive Committee, GEF and UNDP, and with the collaboration of member countries in the region, has as primary responsibility providing the leadership for the smooth and effective transitioning of PEMSEA into a long-term, self-sustaining regional coordinating mechanism for the implementation of the SDS-SEA.

For Technical Assistance
*Local (GEF)*
Country Project Manager	665	624	Exercise technical support and quality control over the development and implementation of ICM scaling up projects to make sure that these are aligned with national policies and priorities, and SDS-SEA objectives and targets and closely monitor the progress, results and impacts of country efforts through the completion of ICM and country State of Coasts reports.
Technical Officer for Project Development	665	312	Identify, assess and prepare quality project proposals within the strategic priorities of SDS-SEA for submission to and review by approving agencies and funding authorities at the national and international levels, taking into account their consistency with design criteria and the SDS-SEA work programs. This also includes recommending reformulation of project proposals, if necessary, and providing guidance for such reformulation.
Training Officer	665	156	Plans, coordinates and implements the conduct of short-term training courses in identified fields such as, but not limited to: Integrated Coastal Management; Risk Assessment and Risk Management; Natural Resources Damage Appraisal for Tropical Ecosystems; Oil Spill Preparedness, Response and Cooperation; Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment; Strategies, Tools and Techniques for Implementing International Conventions; Port Safety and Environmental Management; Oil Spill Clean-Up Cost Recovery and Pollution Damage Claims; Project Development and Management; Coastal Zone Planning and Institutional Arrangements; Integrating Social Science Concerns into Coastal Management Frameworks.
Legal Officer	665	156	Provides an independent advisory function for policy development and implementation, as well as advice on contracting and institutional arrangements within the context of SDS-SEA programmes and projects in the region.
Audit/Certification Officer	665	156	Oversees the development, testing and verification of the ICM Code in selected countries, including the formulation of a recognition and certification system that conforms to ISO 9001 (Quality Management), ISO 14001 (Environmental Management) certification standards.
*Local (Co-financing)*
Technical Officer Events and M&E	600	156	Organizes the EAS Congress, including the Ministerial Forum, in close cooperation with the PRF Technical Services, as well as the conduct of regular monitoring and evaluation of the progress in the implementation of programs of national governments and partners related to the SDS-SEA.
Technical Officer Communications	600	156	Identifies information needs and areas for improvement and facilitates information/knowledge exchange in order to mobilize partners and participants in the implementation of the SDS-SEA, including countries of the region, UN and international agencies, regional programmes and projects, IFIs, scientists, non-governmental organizations and the public at large.
*International (GEF)*
Chief Technical Officer	2,500	156	Developing, coordinating and implementing all technical activities related to the implementation of the GEF/UNDP project, including technical advice to national and local governments and other partners and collaborators implementing the SDS-SEA.
Programme Officer for Partnership Applications	1,500	156	Facilitating replication of good practices in pollution reduction through partnership arrangements involving local government units, national agencies and financial institutions, international agencies and financial institutions, donors and the private sector.
Programme Officer Learning Center	1,200	156	Planning and implementing programme strategies to promote awareness and mobilizing the strengths and capacities of scientific institutions, local communities, environmental organizations, women’s groups, religious organizations, indigenous people and the private sector involved in sustainable ocean development in the region.
Regional Task Force	2,500	188	Develops and conducts regional and sub-regional training/capacity development workshops and technical assistance activities covering specialized skills for ICM and integrated coastal and river basin management, including: Risk Assessment and Risk Management; Natural Resources Damage Appraisal for Tropical Ecosystems; Oil Spill Preparedness, Response and Cooperation; Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment; Strategies, Tools and Techniques for Implementing International Conventions; Port Safety and Environmental Management; Oil Spill Clean-Up Cost Recovery and Pollution Damage Claims; Project Development and Management; Coastal Zone Planning and Institutional Arrangements; Integrating Social Science Concerns into Coastal Management Frameworks.
*International (Co-financing)*
Senior Programme Officer Secretariat Services	2,100	156	Undertakes day-to-day activities concerning the operationalization of the 2007-2010 work programme of the EAS Partnership Council, including interacting with and supporting the PRF Technical Services regarding the preparation of Council submissions that cover: a) a State of Coasts reporting system; b) a regional Partnership Fund; c) a 6-year framework of Partnership Programs; and d) PEMSEA’s transformation to a self-sustaining regional mechanism with its own legal identity;
Programme Officer Partnership Programmes	1,500	156	Develops work programmes, collaborative activities and capacity-building activities with the PEMSEA Partners towards the implementation of the 6-year rolling work plan for the implementation of the SDS-SEA.

* Detailed job descriptions are available in Annex G of the Executive Summary

Annex d: status of implementation of project preparation activities and the use of funds

explain if the ppg objective has been achieved through the ppg activities undertaken.

The PDF-B project was designed and implemented with the objective of formulating an approved work programme for the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA). The project entailed a series of consultations with participating national governments, their partners at the subnational, country and regional levels, as well as collaborating international agencies and organizations. Over an 18-month period (January 2006 to June 2007) the project was able to achieve all outputs and outcomes identified in the Project Document. Specifically, outputs and outcomes were delivered as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Project Achievements – Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs	Ouput targets	Outcomes
Output 1: Baseline assessment/TORs for streamlining national policies and actions plans.	1. Baseline assessments were completed in 11 countries, namely: Cambodia, China, DPR Korea, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Vietnam. Japan and RO Korea also submitted baseline assessments using their own resources. 2. TORs/work plans for SDS-SEA implementation were prepared by: Cambodia; China; Indonesia; Lao PDR; Philippines; Thailand; Timor Leste and Vietnam.	1. The information gathered and collated during the baseline assessment phase allowed countries to analyze the status of their respective national policies, programs and projects and how they contributed to implementation of the SDS-SEA. As a consequence, incremental activities and outcomes associated with the proposed GEF-supported project were then defined and discerned from national efforts. 2. The TOR/work plans provided countries with a road map for implementation of the SDS-SEA over the first three years of the GEF-supported project, focusing on: a) depletion of coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity, and b) nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from land-based pollution of coastal waters, through policy reforms, institutional arrangements and ICM implementation. 3. Co-financing commitments of $27,594,400 were also confirmed by the participating governments in support of the TORs and work plans.
Output 2: Lao PDR and Timor Leste confirmed as new participating countries for SDS-SEA implementation.	1. National consultative workshops were held in Lao PDR (June 2006) and Timor Leste (July 2005), where senior government officials were briefed on the SDS-SEA.	1. Senior Government Officials from Lao PDR and Timor Leste signed the Haikou Partnership Agreement for the Implementation of the SDS-SEA, during the Ministerial Forum of the EAS Congress.
		2. Capacity development work programs identified and agreed to by each country, aimed at reducing disparities related to SDS-SEA implementation. 3. Sites identified and selected for the development and implementation of ICM programs in Lao PDR and Timor Leste, in partnership with national agencies and local government units.
	2. Senior government officials from Lao PDR and Timor Leste attended the 12^th Programme Steering Committee of PEMSEA in August 2006, to participate in regional consultations concerning implementation arrangements for the SDS-SEA. 3. Capacity needs assessments completed in Lao PDR and Timor Leste in April and June 2007, respectively. Capacity development program formulated for each country to enhance SDS-SEA implementation.
Output 3: National and regional consultations conducted.	1. National consultations/forums were conducted in 10 countries: a) Cambodia: March 2006; b) China: May 2006; c) DPR Korea: September 2006; d) Indonesia: April 2006; e) Japan: February 2006; f) Philippines: February/June 2006; g) RO Korea: May 2006; h) Singapore: January 2006; i) Thailand: March 2006; and j) Vietnam: March 2006. 2. Consultations/joint meetings/ workshops were undertaken with regional and international agencies, organizations, programs and projects, as follows: a) 12^th Programme Steering Committee of the PEMSEA Regional Programme: August 2006, reviewed, analyzed and approved the work program and schedule of the SDS-SEA implementation project; b) COBSEA-PEMSEA Joint Regional Workshop on Partnership Opportunities for Enhancing GPA Implementation: September 2006; c) GEF/UNDP/World Bank/IW Learn/PEMSEA Workshop on GEF International Waters Strategic Partnerships for Danube-Black Sea and the Seas of East Asia, during the UNEP GPA IGR2 Conference: October 2006; d) PEMSEA workshop on Local Government Implementation of GPA: Partnerships in Integrated Management of Coastal and Marine Areas organized and conducted as part of the UNEP GPA IGR2 meeting: October 2006; e) EAS Congress 2006, involving 42 co-organizing agencies and organizations and more than 800 participants: December 2006.	1. Consensus established among countries on the strategies, objectives and work program for SDS-SEA implementation. A 10-year transformation process was agreed to by the countries, wherein PEMSEA will transform from a project-oriented regional initiative to a self-sustaining regional mechanism for the implementation of the SDS-SEA, with its own legal identity. 2. Three countries (i.e., China, Japan and RO Korea) have agreed to finance the PRF Secretariat Services component of the regional mechanism.
		3. Twelve organizations/programs signed the Partnership Operating Arrangements for Implementation of the SDS-SEA in December 2006, namely: Conservation International Philippines; Coastal Management Center, Philippines; UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme; IOC/WESTPAC; Korea Environment Institute; Korea Maritime Institute; Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute; Ocean Policy and Research Foundation, Japan; Oil Spill Response and East Asia Response Limited, Singapore/UK; Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK; UNEP Global Programme of Action; and the UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea LME Project. With the signing, these organizations are recognized as PEMSEA Partners in the EAS Partnership Council.
		4. In addition: a) An agreement has been signed with the UNDP Small Grants Programme in support of NGOs/CBOs/POs participation in the formulation and implementation of coastal strategies at the local government level; b) The World Bank, UNDP and PEMSEA are in the process of forging a pilot Strategic Partnership Arrangement for implementation of the SDS-SEA; c) An MOA has been signed with UNEP-GPA, outlining areas of cooperation and collaboration regarding implementation of GPA within the framework of the SDS-SEA in the East Asian region; d) PEMSEA and COBSEA prepared a joint policy brief entitled Partnership Opportunities for Enhancing GPA Implementation in the East Asian Region (2007-2011), which was presented to the GPA IGR2 meeting in October 2006. The policy brief outlines ways and means of promoting enhanced collaboration and sharing experiences and knowledge among countries and regional programs and projects. COBSEA sits as an Observer at the EAS Partnership Council; e) The GEF/UNDP Yellow Sea project signed the Partnership Operating Arrangements of PEMSEA in December 2006, thereby becoming a member of the EAS Partnership Council; f) The GEF/UNEP South China Sea project collaborated with PEMSEA in the organization and implementation of the EAS Congress 2006 and sat as an Observer during the Inaugural Meeting of the EAS Partnership Council in December 2006; g) Letters of Cooperation have been signed with: i) Conservation International concerning areas of collaboration in East Asia with regard to resource and biodiversity conservation and protection in the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas; ii) the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Victorian Coastal Council (VCC) of Victoria, Australia, for awareness-building, skills enhancement and professional development, linkage-, partnership, and local alliance—building, and strengthening the use of intellectual capital through networking for marine education, training and research; iii) NOAA covering the integrated freshwater to oceans management approach, focused on the Jiulongjiang River in the Xiamen-Zhangzhou-Longyan region of Fujian Province; iv) 3 Korean research institutions, namely Korea Maritime Institute, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, and Korea Environment Institute, to broaden knowledge sharing and capacity building in integrated coastal management in the East Asian Seas region; SENSA; IOI; SEAFDEC; NACA; NOWPAP.
Output 4: Monitoring and evaluation plan	1. Regional meeting of experts organized and conducted to discuss the framework of a State of Coasts (SOC) reporting system for East Asian Seas; 2. Templates prepared for local (ICM), subregional, national and regional SOC reports; 3. Regional meeting of experts adopted templates for SOC, relevant indicators and work program for SOC reporting outcomes and impacts at the different levels of interest, including GEF and UNDP.	1. A matrix outlining stakeholder participation at the local, national and regional levels was accomplished and agreed to by the governments and their partners. 2. An SOC reporting system, consistent with GEF process, stress reduction and environmental and social status indicators was drafted and agreed to by a multidisciplinary regional expert group. 3. The Stakeholder Participation Plan was incorporated into the work programs of the participating countries for ICM scaling up, integrated river basin and coastal area management, SGP project development and implementation, and capacity development.
Output 4: Monitoring and evaluation plan	4. Stakeholder Participation Plan prepared based on national and regional consultations, including recommendations from EAS Congress workshops/meetings (e.g., ICM dialogue; Achieving MDG through local capacities for ICRM; Small Grants Programme; and Implementing GPA)
Output 5: GEF Executive Summary and GEF-UNDP Project Document	1. The 12^th PEMSEA Programme Steering Committee meeting reviewed and approved the Project Document in August 2006; 2. The supplemental 9-point annex for the project was approved by the GEF Sec in February 2007; 3. Executive Summary and ProDoc revised in response to new GEF formats.	1. The Executive Summary and Project Document were submitted on schedule for consideration by GEF Council during its June 2007 meeting.
Output 6: Bridging Activities	1. National workshops conducted in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Vietnam to identify capacity development needs, delineate linkages with related projects/programs, and identify project sites. 2. Capacity development programs and schedules completed for each participating country. 3. ICM training program and manual prepared, including training-trainers program and ICM mangers program. 4. Post graduate ICM curriculum developed by experts/ universities in the region. 5. ICM scaling up strategy and work program completed in 5 countries. 6. SOC reporting system confirmed by multidisciplinary expert group.	1. MOAs signed with participating governments regarding the national work program and resource commitments for implementation of the SDS-SEA during the three-year project. 2. Co-financing commitments totaling $33,374,400 confirmed.

describe if any findings that might affect the project design or any concerns on project implementation.

N/A

provide detailed funding amount of the ppg activities and their implemtation status in the table below:

*Project Preparation Activities Approved*	*Implementation Status***	*GEF Amount ($)*				*Co-financing* *($)*
*Project Preparation Activities Approved*	*Implementation Status***	*Amount Approved*	*Amount Spent To-date*	*Amount Committed*	Uncommitted Amount*	*Co-financing* *($)*
1. Baseline Assessment conducted in 8 countries		21,700	39,545		-17,848	95,000
2. Confirmation of SDS-SEA work plan and capacity development programs in Lao PDR and Timor Leste		110,600	108,600		2,000	28,000
3. National and regional consultations conducted		120,000	113,156		6,844	150,000
4. M&E Plan developed		14,000	13,500		500	4,400
5. GEF Executive Summary and Project Document prepared, endorsed by countries and submitted to GEF/UNDP		34,331	33,146		1,185	44,444
6. Bridging activities conducted in 8 countries, to facilitate preparation of work plans/resource allocations		297,969	290,653		7,316	76,000
Project Management		101,400	101,400		0	0

Total		700,000	700,000		0	397,400

* Uncommitted amount should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. Please indicate expected date of refund transaction to Trustee.

Project Components

Indicate whether Investment, TA, or STA**

Expected Outputs

GEF Financing*

($)

%

($)

%

Cost Items

Total Estimated person weeks

GEF

Other sources ($)

Project total ($)

Locally recruited personnel

1,468

Local consultants*

International consultants*

Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications**

Component

Estimated person weeks

GEF($)

Other sources ($)

Project total ($)

Local consultants*

International consultants*

Total